Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act 1988
2. Local Government Act 1988
3. British Railways (London) Act 1988

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Question, [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 30 March.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 30 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming debate on Question [15 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday 30 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Information Policy Unit

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities for the information policy unit and pyschological operations in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): My Department has no such unit.

Mr. Livingstone: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he explain why members of the security services have been involved in exercises entailing the use of Government facilities to forge documents; the passage of arms, including guns and bombs, to members of the civilian community, to be used against members of the security services and individuals in Southern Ireland; and political disinformation programmes such as "Clockwork Orange" during the 1974 election? Who was authorising all that if there was no such unit?

Dr. Mawhinney: The House is becoming aware—indeed more than aware—of the allegations constantly made by the hon. Gentleman. We would be interested to see the evidence to support what he has said.

Mr. Dalyell: Who authorised the bugging of the hay yard in the case of Michael Tighe, as adumbrated in Mr. Stalker's book? On what and on whose authority was that done?

Dr. Mawhinney: I do not believe that that has anything to do with the question.

Cross-Border Co-operation

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border co-operation.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): Cross-border co-operation takes place over a wide range of activities. We shall continue to look for ways to develop it further.

Mr. Townsend: I am glad to be told that the respective chiefs of police are to hold a meeting at last, but will my right hon. Friend explain why meetings recently arranged were either postponed or cancelled? Is not the closest possible co-ordination and co-operation between the two police forces absolutely essential, and does not the absence of that close co-operation greatly benefit the IRA?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome the fact that a meeting of the full conference is to take place tomorrow, which will be attended, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier this week, by both the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda.

Mr. Alton: Has the Minister, through the Intergovernmental Conference, been able to take part in discussions with police chiefs from the Garda about the possibility of solidarity being shown with RUC members,


when they are involved in incidents at funerals in Northern Ireland, by having members of the Garda present on those occasions?
Secondly, has any further consideration been given to the question of a joint security commission?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware that the first point has been raised through the secretariat machinery, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point which will no doubt be reflected on.
The joint security commission is not part of our proposals. However, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have made substantial progress on cross-border security co-operation and are continually assessing how to improve it further. We now have better co-operation on racketeering, better communications, better information exchange, better bomb disposal co-operation and certainly better operational co-operation than before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed.

Mr. Conway: Does cross-border co-operation cover more than just Government agencies? Has Irish Television been prepared to release any broadcast footage of the disgraceful murders last weekend in the Province? If so, does that not show the reluctance of television companies this side of the water, to their great shame?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that my understanding is that the Irish broadcasting authorities have released the films in question.

Mr. McNamara: Does the Minister of State agree that, although cross-border co-operation has concentrated on security matters — for necessary and understandable reasons—co-operation on economic and social matters is equally important? Have the Government agreed to approach the EC for funds for the International Fund for Ireland, not only to ensure continued support for the fund from the United States, but to improve conditions in some of the most disadvantaged areas in Europe?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I very much endorse his opening remarks. We envisage the process of co-operation extending beyond security into political, economic and cultural matters. It is very much the wish of both Governments that we consider ways of securing some form of direct EC participation in the working of the International Fund for Ireland, which I know would be very much welcomed in the United States.

Irish Ministers (Meetings)

Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Irish Prime Minister.

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the Irish Foreign Secretary; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what items will be on the agenda of the next Anglo-Irish Conference.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I have no present plans to meet the Taoiseach, but I expect to meet Mr. Lenihan in a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference tomorrow. It is not normal practice to disclose the whole agenda in advance, but it will certainly include cross-border security co-operation.

Mr. Parry: I am sorry about the right hon. Gentlman's reply. When he meets Mr. Lenihan, will he discuss the recent murders in Gibraltar and the Province? How can the Anglo-Irish Agreement reduce this violence? I voted against the agreement, for reasons which differed from those of Ulster Members. Many people, including myself, are concerned that the recent slaughter and carnage may spill over into the mainland, to cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow.

Mr. King: Obviously, every hon. Member shares the concern about recent violent events: the attempted terrorist outrages, such as the one in Gibraltar, the terrorist attack at the funeral in Milltown and the various killings that have occurred. No amount of signing of agreements will abolish evil men. Our duty is to work together as Governments and people to try to isolate and deal with the men of violence.

Mr. Flannery: If and when the Secretary of State meets leading figures of the Irish Government and discusses the recent killings in Northern Ireland, will he discuss with his opposite number the killings in Gibraltar, which sparked off a series of killings? [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman remember as clearly as most of us that the Republic of Ireland Government immediately raised these issues, which deepened divisions between the two Governments? Therefore, the Irish Government are bound to want to discuss those matters as well as the murders in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: That was an outrageous supplementary question. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would have been if 200 people had met their deaths in Gibraltar that day. As has been said in a letter to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the bomb which was discovered in the car park in Malaga was said by the Spanish police, with their experience of terrorism, to be the most powerful bomb that they had ever seen in their lives. They had never before seen anything in Spain to compare with it. Obviously, no one welcomes death, but I have no hesitation in recognising the problems faced by the security forces in preventing outrages of that kind. I would not compare that with terrorist attacks.

Mr. Grocott: Rather than restating the established position, does the Secretary of State not think that the agenda for tomorrow should be as wide and as open as possible, with a willingness to learn some lessons from the events of the past few weeks? There should be openness and acceptance that there really has been a sudden and dramatic deterioration in relations between London and Dublin and between the communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I have spent most of my life learning about issues and events that arise. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is nodding agreement. Certainly I would be the first to say that I bitterly regret the sequence of incidents that have taken place. Every sensible hon. Member would rather that they had not happened—most recently, and most obviously and tragically, the events of Saturday. There are lessons to be learnt from all of that by every single person involved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, within the communities in Northern Ireland and within the Governments of the Republic and of the United Kingdom. I hope that we will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We


do not wish in any way to restrict our discussions tomorrow. We shall have as open and as wide-ranging discussions as we can.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the Irish Government that the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics in this country find it deeply offensive—[Interruption.]—I speak as a Catholic—that Roman Catholic priests in the Province officiate at masses and funerals with paramilitary overtones? Will he ask the Irish Government to use their good offices to make it quite clear to Cardinal O'Fiaich that it would greatly help ordinary men, women and children in Northern Ireland if he stopped that action?

Mr. King: The Catholic Church has made it absolutely clear that it does not accept any paramilitary trappings or associations within its churches or in their grounds. Of course, there is a problem after funerals have left the churches and are no longer within their jurisdiction.
I have said to the House that I regret some of the phrases and comments of certain priests, but I would not want to make that comment without coupling with it the warmest respect and a certain humility at the courage and outspokeness of Bishop Cahal Daly and the clear statement that he made.

Mr. Wilkinson: When my right hon. Friend meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he express in the strongest possible terms his regret at the decision of the Irish Government to allow the bodies of the terrorists killed in Gibraltar to land in Dublin and the solemn propaganda procession from Dublin to Northern Ireland thereafter to take place? Will he also make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government reserve to themselves alone the right to police Northern Ireland and every other part of the United Kingdom according to their own lights and interests?

Mr. King: In regard to the second half of the question, of course is correct. That is precisely why in the Anglo-Irish Agreement the operational independence of the Chief Constable is clearly defined. That is regarded as an important and indeed essential element within the agreement.
I hope my hon. Friend recognises that the Irish Government certainly did not seek the arrival of the bodies of the terrorists in Dublin. As to whether they had the power to refuse them, the decision ultimately was for the families, who made their own arrangements without any Government support. Certain hon. Members suggested that the British Government should take responsibility for them, but we did not think that that was right. It was a matter for the familes, and they made their arrangements.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to report to the House on the progress that he feels has been made under the Anglo-Irish Agreement in real terms? The Prime Minister set the goals of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of peace, stability and reconciliation. Have the deaths decreased during the 28 months of the agreement? Is there more stability in Northern Ireland? Are the communities less polarised than before? Would the Secretary of State comment on that?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is a master of the destructive intervention. He seeks to destroy. I had hoped, building on the contribution that he made to earlier exchanges on Monday, that his thoughts were turning to

how we might build a constructive relationship. Of course, he knows the answer to his own questions. He knows that at present we are facing an acute terrorist threat —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) should listen. I am answering the question. There has been sectarian violence, and the deaths caused by Loyalist and Republican extremists are far too high. It must be the determination of all hon. Members to seek to reduce the level of violence.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of the Irish Republic, will he explore, in the light of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the comment of the Irish Prime Minister that there is no place for devolution in Northern Ireland, and that of the Irish Government's representative in America at the St. Patrick's day celebrations that the Hillsborough agreement is going to work?

Mr. King: I think that there is wide misunderstanding of what the Taoiseach said about devolution. Under the agreement, the Irish Government are in no position to put forward proposals about devolution involving the majority community. Their role is to comment on the position of the minority community. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the agreement, he will find that that is the position. What Mr. Haughey made clear in his statement to the Dail—and I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome it — is that it is a matter for the British Government and for the parties within Northern Ireland to consider ways forward. It is certainly an opportunity for the Irish Govenment to comment, and I should have thought that that was the right way forward.

Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Social and Democratic Labour party in Belfast and the Irish Government in Dublin have both expressed their disagreement with the welcome announcement yesterday by the Royal Ulster Constabulary that in future funerals are to be properly policed? Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow at the Intergovernmental Conference there will be further disagreement between himself and the representatives of the Irish Government, because the Irish Government have been given the right to put forward views and proposals about how policing should be carried out in Belfast? Is he aware that after the meeting tomorrow there will be further disagreements between Dublin and London?

Mr. King: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimistic approach to these problems. The Irish Government can put forward views and proposals on a whole range of matters, but it is for us to take the decisions. It will be an opportunity to discuss different aspects. My hon. Friend, in paraphrasing it, said that there had been opposition from both the SDLP and the Irish Government to a statement by the RUC that funerals will be properly policed. I think everybody agrees that funerals should be properly policed, but the question is: in what way? My hon. Friend will have seen the Chief Constable's statement. He is carrying out his review against that background as a matter of urgency. I assure my hon. Friend that his concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends, as I made clear at this Dispatch Box on Monday, about the incidents that occurred are proper concerns. The


incidents that occurred were wholly unacceptable and require an immediate review of the policing to be followed at any future funeral. That review is being carried out.

Mr. McNamara: When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Lenihan tomorrow, will he discuss with him both the security issues involved in west Belfast and the great amount of social deprivation that exists there? Would not this be a marvellous occasion for the International Fund for Ireland, the two Governments and the European Community to deal with an area which Mary Holland said had largely been bypassed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and which Bishop Cahal Daly, to whom he rightly paid tribute, said was a social desert?

Mr. King: I certainly recognise the problems that are faced by west Belfast, including the problem of unemployment. I wish to see what can be done to improve employment generally in the Province. West Belfast is one of the worst and most difficult areas. The hon. Gentleman will agree with me that what makes west Belfast acutely difficult to tackle is the problem of terrorism and the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein, while pretending to be concerned about unemployment, blow up factories, intimidate employers and make it acutely difficult to provide more chances of employment for the people whom they claim to represent.

Health and Social Services

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the draft proposals from the Eastern health and social services board to effect savings of £7·6 million in 1988–89.

Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the draft proposals from the Eastern health and social services board to effect savings of £7·6 million in 1988–89.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Eastern health and social services board is at present consulting on a wide range of possible options to allow it to live within its budget for 1988–89. The board will not be considering these until 14 April, and in these circumstances I cannot at the moment comment further.

Mr. McWilliam: Is the Minister aware that the board is considering cuts in gynaecological and surgical services at Lagan Valley hospital, the closure of the accident and emergency service at Ards hospital, the reduction of accident and emergency services at Mater hospital and the closure of Throne hospital with an overall loss of 100 surgical beds? Is he further aware that the board has demanded that all hospitals reduce their demand for blood products? Will he join Opposition Members in demanding that the money necessary to prevent cuts is made available as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Needham: Some 99 per cent. of the proposals put forward by the Eastern board—they are only proposals — to be considered and determined fall within the strategic plan that the board has accepted. I agree that, because of the levels of funding available this year, many of the proposals have been brought forward. Nevertheless, in addition to the rationalisation referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the Eastern board is bringing forward proposals for new development costing in excess of £2 million.

Mr. Kilfedder: As a result of Government cuts in health and social services, the North Down and Ards areas are threatened with a reduction in the number of doctors and nurses and the possible closure of a number of wards and hospitals, including Cultra house and Crawfordsburn hospital. Will the Minister therefore reconsider the cuts and provide sufficient money to ensure that the standards that applied before he took office are maintained?

Mr. Needham: Given that the level of provision in the Northern Ireland Health Service is 23 per cent. higher than that in England and Wales, that we spend £539 per person in Northern Ireland compared with £438 here and that we have 50 per cent. more beds and double the number of home helps, I would hope that we shall continue to give a high level of service in health care in Northern Ireland. One of the hospitals to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an old hospital in poor condition, and we hope to replace the beds by much more professional and better provision than exists at the moment.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that his additional allocation of £5 million from the housing budget will not go any way towards alleviating the financial distress of the Eastern health board and the other boards in providing a reasonable level of medical care in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that by his own Treasury's raid of the housing department he has put into total disarray the housing strategy that he and his Department agreed for Northern Ireland, and that the disrepair will now outstrip the ability of the Housing Executive to carry out its work? Furthermore, does he agree that the transfer of finances from the health and housing budgets to the security budget is an imposition on the ordinary sick and innocent in Northern Ireland and is totally unjustified?

Mr. Needham: It would be foolish not to admit that the pressures on the law and order budget in Northern Ireland have some effect on the remaining funds available in the Northern Ireland block. That inevitably affects the amount that we can spend on health. Furthermore, the results of violence mean that services in the Northern Ireland Health Service have to be devoted to neurosurgery and aftercare for those who have been injured and therefore cannot be used for dealing with the ordinary sick. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we spend twice as much money in Northern Ireland on the housing budget. In the circumstances I thought it right, because of the restraints on capital on the health side, to transfer £5 million to the health budget. I think that that will be welcomed by the boards. Although it will not go the whole way, it will go some way towards improving the services.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Minister do his best to see that the Antrim hosiptal is completed as soon as possible, and will he also do his best to see that when the contracts go out for that hospital as much local labour as possible is used in building it?

Mr. Needham: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Antrim hospital. The Northern board has a coherent strategy for acute care. It has a large number of acute cottage hospitals at the moment that cannot remain viable in terms of equipment or staff. The Antrim hospital is a crucial and important new development in the Northern board, which will improve services for the people there. I can assure the hon.


Gentleman that we shall be starting the building of the hospital at the end of this year and that it will be completed on time.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that throughout the House there are many people who believe that there is an urgent need for extra funding for the whole Health Service, particularly in Northern Ireland? Does he agree also that there is anger in the Province at the moment at the removal of money from the Housing Executive budget so that it can be handed over to the health budget —in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Mr. Needham: There would have been just as much anger had I not done so. I repeat to the House that the amount of money that has been made available to the Health Service in Northern Ireland is over 20 per cent. more than that made available in the rest of the country. If we look at the levels suggested in the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, we can see that we are achieving those levels in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister recognise that his words today will bring little comfort to all the people in the Province, across the political divide, who are concerned about the level of health provision in Northern Ireland? Why does he not take this opportunity to swallow his pride, and respond to those wishes from all the people in Northern Ireland and make the simple announcement that more resources will be available?

Mr. Needham: Swallowing my pride is unlikely to make the resources available. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, realises the problems within the Northern Ireland block and knows that we spend 40 per cent. more through public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland than the rest of the country. A total of 70 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland is in the public sector. We have an unrivalled example of good services in health. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that the present priority of law and order inevitably means that there are other pressures, so that we are not always able to do everything that we would want.

Security

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security station in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 25 February, 12 people have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. They include two soldiers, one policeman, five civilians and four members of the Provisional IRA. A further three members of the Provisional IRA were killed whilst on a terrorist mission in Gibraltar. Against this serious background, the security forces have achieved some significant results.
Since the beginning of the year a total of 56 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder and six with attempted murder. In addition, one person was charged earlier this week with the three murders at Milltown cemetery on 16 March and with three sectarian murders committed between November 1984 and May 1987. A total of 247 weapons, approximately 65,000 rounds of ammunition and 2,700 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I also

understand that the Gardia Siochana has recovered some 138 weapons, over 88,000 rounds of ammunition and 600 lb of commercial explosive.

Mr. Duffy: As the Secretary of State comes under obvious pressure to return to hard-line policies, will he bear in mind the earlier opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), which I share, that it was the adoption of such a hard-line policy in Gibraltar that started the present phase of violence? Will he also bear in mind that the restoration of saturation security presence at funerals will, on past records, always end in violence? Will he be especially wary of those advisers who are probably less motivated by a desire to find a way of breaking out of the present mounting cycle of violence than they are simply by blood lust and revenge?

Mr. King: I have to say that, while I understand the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary about the very difficult problem of the policing of funerals and the difficulties with which the House is familiar, which are issues that exercise the Chief Constable very much indeed, as his statement yesterday made clear, I do not accept in any way the premise of his question. The hon. Gentleman speaks with enormous authority about something at which he was not present, on which the inquest before a jury has still to take place and in which certain military personnel were in aid of the Gibraltar police seeking to prevent a very serious terrorist outrage. How he can interpret that in the way that he does as some present hard-line policy under my control within Northern Ireland quite defeats me.

Mr. Marlow: Last week in the House I asked my right hon. Friend whether the IRA was being allowed to police its own funerals. He told the House—Hansard, column 1250 — that I had fallen prey to "damaging and pernicious propaganda." Did my right hon. Friend fall prey to propaganda, or was he deceived, and, if the latter, who deceived him and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend used the word "police". There is only one police force in Northern Ireland, the RUC, and, as the Chief Constable has made clear, we will not countenance breaches of the law or usurpation of the police function. I make that absolutely clear. May I also say to the House—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me and agree with me on this — that it is an absolute obscenity that a funeral, of all the ceremonies in life, should require a police presence. It is because of the utterly unscrupulous approach of paramilitary organisations that seek to exploit such occasions for propaganda and terrorist purposes that it is necessary to take the steps that we do. I am sure that my hon. Friend would far rather see a funeral, of all occasions, pass off with dignity and respect and without political propaganda.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State, bearing in mind how the Government of whom he is a member were able to change the method by which unemployment figures were presented, to make them more meaningful, we believe, try to change the method by which he presents figures to the House about trouble in Northern Ireland? He constantly tells us about the number of people charged with crimes, but gives us no idea how ineffective the courts are within the civil law in dealing with those crimes or of the number of convictions.
Will he also comment on the fact that when he answered my question about cross-border co-operation he


asserted that the Irish Government had charged someone with the murder of Corporal Thomas Hewitt in Belleek? Will he now tell the House that the same Government, and the same judicial procedure, had that person released without even being brought before the courts? May we have meaningful figures in future?

Mr. King: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member in the point that he has made, because it is very difficult indeed to find the best way of presenting these figures. The difficulty that I face, to be quite frank, is that this very week we have had the sentencing of Martin Meehan, the conviction and a substantial gaol sentence for the kidnapping of a TA soldier on 12 July 1986 — and I remember that incident very well. We have had just today the conviction of some people involved with the UDR arms theft, and that, of course, was some time ago as well. I think that it is more accurate to give the House the charging figure, but I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the Royal Ulster Constabulary's armoured Land Rovers play an essential role in the control of public order, can my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to get on top of the new molten copper weapons that the IRA is now using against these Land Rovers? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he seeks the support of the entire community to turn down the graph of violence that must include everybody, including the media and especially the BBC, whose explanations for not handing over the film were meretricious and unacceptable?

Mr. King: On my hon. Friend's first point, which is very serious, several steps are being taken, and among the work that is actively being pursued are, initially, security procedures. Material investigation is also taking place to try to insure against and prevent what my hon. Friend correctly identifies as a serious problem.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I welcome the fact that yesterday the BBC and ITN, and today RTE, agreed to provide all available tapes to the RUC investigators.

Mr. Molyneaux: At the risk of receiving a further rebuff, may I ask the Secretary of State again whether he will explain how the stand-off decision was taken, what wider considerations preceded the issue of the Chief Constable's directive, and what part was played by the Maryfield secretariat in those deliberations?

Mr. King: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to pursue these matters when he has already alleged a meeting which I think he now admits did not happen—I hope that he accepts that. The decisions on policing were taken by the Chief Constable, who informed me on Tuesday evening of the decisions that he had reached. I have absolutely no doubt that he consulted widely. Those consultations included myself—I make no secret of that. The Chief Constable took a decision, which I have no doubt was made in conjunction with his senior officers, which seemed to him appropriate in the circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable which I respect and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support.

Fair Employment

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received concerning his fair employment proposals.

Mr. Stanley: Representations from 87 individuals or groups were received in response to the consultative paper published in September 1986 and from 63 individuals or groups in response to the draft of the guide to the effective practice which was published in its final form in September 1987. A number of comments have been made in relation to our new fair employment proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 2 March, including a statement welcoming them in principle made by the Irish Foreign Minister.

Mr. Hayes: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, will he be particularly careful to ensure that fair employment legislation is specifically targeted at genuine discrimination and that he does not create a complicated bureaucratic superstructure for positive discrimination, which would be quite counter-productive and against his laudable aims?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that it is exactly our intention that we should enshrine it firmly in legislation and ensure that employment recruitment in the Province is based entirely on the principle of merit, and on nothing else.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind that at the centre of those proposals is the proposition that employers should keep registers of the religious affiliations of all their employees, will the Minister consider the suggestion that, to set an example to private employers, he should instruct DHSS officers in Northern Ireland to start keeping registers of the religious affiliations of the unemployed in Northern Ireland? We may learn a lot from those statistics.

Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our fair employment proposals apply as much to the public sector as to the private sector.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative to encourage employment in places such as west Belfast and the Bogside of Londonderry? Will he tell the House what specific measures he is taking to encourage small businesses and self-employment in those communities?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend knows, a later question has been tabled on that matter. We have announced some far-reaching measures to try to increase the number of training opportunities and the number of opportunities for the self-employed, and to encourage small businesses in a wide variety of ways.

Health and Social Services

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had on additional funding for health and social services provision in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have recently met the chairmen of the four health and social services boards to discuss this issue. I have also discussed it with local representatives of the Royal College of Nursing and will be meeting a number of other groups in the near future.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has already given a number of figures and statistics about the quality of health care in the north of Ireland, but what does he think about the statistics produced by the four health and social services boards? —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have made very slow progress at this Question Time. Since the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) cannot find a seat in her accustomed place, perhaps she would like to sit somewhere else.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister comment on the statistics of the four area health and social services boards and on the fact that, in the financial year 1988–89, they are underfunded by £14 million a year? What will he do about that?

Mr. Needham: I am sure that the hon. Lady would be welcome to take a seat on our side of the House, if she so wanted.
As I explained earlier, funding in the Health Service in Northern Ireland is 23 per cent. per head higher than in the rest of England and Wales. Although there is always room to spend more money on the Health Service, we are well funded. There are savings that we could make and we shall still provide excellent health care for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Ashley: The Prime Minister's support for the armed services is well known, but is she aware that service personnel who have been seriously crippled and damaged by negligence before December 1986 can neither sue for negligence nor obtain any kind of ex gratia payment because of rigid and dogmatic Government policy? Will the Prime Minister recognise that any Government who are not prepared to fight for these neglected casualties are open to the charge of having no memory, no stomach, no spine and no guts?

The Prime Minister: I know the particular case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He is aware that it is not possible to make all new legislation retrospective, for reasons that he will understand. I believe that that is possibly why he has taken up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. This particular case came to my notice only within the past 24 hours and I am looking into it further.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no more fundamental duty for any citizen than to contribute to the maintenance of law and order and to do everything possible to prevent crime, particularly violent crime and murder? It is, therefore, the duty of every citizen to co-operate with the police and to supply such evidence as he or she may have available that is relevant to investigations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that duty is indivisible and that it affects every

human being, including cameramen, employees of broadcasting corporations and the management of those corporations? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that the broadcasting corporations have not seen fit to see matters in that light and that it is particularly—[Interruption.)

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough. It is unfair to ask several questions at one time.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that upholding the law cannot be left only to the police and the courts and that it is the duty of every citizen to give information and evidence and, if necessary, to bear witness, and they should not need to be prompted to d o so. However, I am very pleased that the evidence now seems to have been provided.

Mr. Steel: In view of the fact that a meeting is to take place tonight at 10 o'clock our time at Ford's headquarters in the United States with trade union representatives from Britain, will the Prime Minister accept from me, as one who has been in touch with them during the week, that it is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are making very slow progress.

Mr. Steel: —worth making a last-minute plea to Ford and the Transport and General Workers Union to secure 1,000 jobs for Scotland? Will she invite other party leaders to join in such a united plea?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we want the jobs. We want the business. We would like to have both. It is a matter for great concern that the trade unions, over a period of five months, disagreed, and disagreed publicly, and that so far they do not seem to be unanimous on the course that they wish to take. They must sort out their own problems and then take their particular case to Ford and see whether they can win back the jobs that they have so severely jeopardised.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ford might be helped to change its decision not to locate its plant in Dundee if sponsored Members of the TGWU were to back the Government's call to help Ford? Would not the Labour party support that if it were not more concerned with the 1·2 million block vote in the coming leadership election?

The Prime Minister: It would be a great advance if the trade unions could speak with a single voice and if they all recognised that many companies now wanting to invest in Britain require a single union, and in many places—for example, Nissan at Sunderland, and places in Wales—a single union is normal. That appears to be the way of the future and I hope the trade unions will realise it so that we shall get business and jobs.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister, in the middle of her busy day, share with me a sentence from a pensioner constituent of mine in which he said that this Budget was the most unjust, un-Christian, provocative Budget ever produced? He is a pensioner who has lost £9·20 a week because of the Government's changes. Moreover, a Bristol mother, Ms. Felicity Gorden, will lose £47·74 a week because of the changes introduced by the Government in


social security regulations. The Prime Minister thought that the most significant thing about the parable of the Good Samaritan—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Griffiths: —was that he had money in his pocket to help those in need. Will she now, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, advocate that all those who have received money beyond their wildest dreams from the Chancellor in the Budget should give it back to help those people, or does she prefer the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice that in the Budget the age allowance for pensioners reached the highest level since it was introduced, so that marginal relief is not phased out until they reach an income of some £10,000. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his policy would dry up the prosperity upon which increasing pensions depend.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House for brief questions, please.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Was my right hon. Friend not appalled by the TGWU's negative, destructive response to the proposed agreement for a single union deal between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and Ford at Dundee? Does she agree that there is more than a little whiff of hypocrisy in the air when we find today that that same TGWU has negotiated two separate single union deals in Wales?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of factories and companies where it is quite normal to have a single union, and there are a number of companies which, if they are making an investment in Britain, make it a condition that there should be a single union. Those particular companies do very well indeed and I hope that their example and success will be more readily followed by the trade union movement and that we shall not see any more squabbles, such as the demarcation disputes that we have seen recently, so that we shall get more investment. That is the way to get more jobs and manufacturing exports.

Mr. Kinnock: While the Prime Minister is on the subject of American companies and jobs, I thought that she might refer, at least in passing, to the extraordinary relationship that she managed to establish very recently with Boeing.
Does the Prime Minister know that as a result of her social security cuts next week a single newly unemployed 24-year-old will get only £26·05 a week? Does she think that is enough for anyone to live on?

The Prime Minister: Our record on social security—[Interruption.] is excellent. The right hon. Gentleman is quite well aware—indeed, we fought the election on it—of the differing arrangements that we have made for those between the ages of 16 and 18. I remind him that expenditure on social security as a whole is now £46 billion a year, while it was £16·5 billion during the lifetime of the Labour Government. It is going up by an extra £2 billion.

Mr. Kinnock: That is all very well, but hundreds of thousands of people still get only £26 a week. Could the Prime Minister, in order to help this very large number of young people, place in the Library a copy of the budget that she would recommend for living on £26 a week?

The Prime Minister: The points that were made by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to the Budget would have completely dried up—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

The Prime Minister: The points that the right hon. Gentleman made in his reply to the Budget last week, and the way in which the Labour party voted, would have completely dried up the money that enables us to pay £46 billion to social security and £22 billion to the Health Service. Indeed, if we went back to government by the Labour party we would need a fantastic number of cuts in the Health Service and in pensions.

Mr. Kinnock: I will ask the Prime Minister to give an answer in terms that even she cannot slide out of. Will she tell these young people how they can live on £26 a week?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in hon. Members shouting "Answer" as the Prime Minister has not started.

The Prime Minister: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that social security payments have gone up in real terms—[Interruption.]—and greatly exceed anything that happened to them in the lifetime of the Labour Government.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I say, "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend for being so supportive to the family of the late Corporal Howes, who was a constituent of mine. My right hon. Friend doubtless reflected on the security situation at that time at Northolt. Is she aware that it brought back for some of us memories of Malaya, Aden and Cyprus? Does the serious security situation that we undoubtedly have not call for stricter security measures now? Some of those may be intrusive on a personal basis and may include house-to-house searches; certainly they should include the end of processional funerals.

The Prime Minister: We are considering the security situation. I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answer a question earlier about the decision of Chief Constable with regard to funerals, and policing them.
I agree with my hon. Friend in what he said about the relatives of the two soliders who were murdered in Northern Ireland. We all found it utterly repugnant and deeply moving, but their families will have to bear the burden year in and year out. We all give them our deepest sympathies and condolence.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Lady got some good publicity out of it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Hume.

Mr. Hume: In the light of the Prime Minister's statement of Tuesday, directed at constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and relating to the bringing to justice of people who commit crimes, may I tell her that the implications of her statement were deeply resented by


every member of my party, all of whom are in the front line of the battle against violence? I repeat for the nth time that when it comes to bringing to justice the people who commit crimes in Northern Ireland the police have our full and unequivocal support. I add only one qualification to that: that they behave impartially. That is not an unreasonable request in the light of experience in Northern Ireland. I ask the right hon. Lady to practise what she preaches by telling her right hon. Friends, particularly her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that no one is above the law in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased with what he has said. I am sure he will agree that the RUC is impartial in everything that it does. I hope he will go on to encourage more Roman Catholics to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, because that would make its task a great deal easier.

Mr. Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 MARCH—Completion of remaining stages of the Education Reform Bill (4th Allotted Day).
Motion relating to the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 29 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the terms of reference and membership of the Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House.
WEDNESDAY 30 MARcH— Until about seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 31 MARCH—The House will meet at 9.30 am, take questions until 10.30 am and adjourn at 3.30 pm until Tuesday 12 April.
The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary.

Mr. Dobson: Given that the Government's legislative programme is already in such disarray that we understand that the Palace has been warned that the next Queen's Speech may have to be deferred until December, will the Leader of the House cut his losses and withdraw and abandon altogether the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, if passed, would harm the people of Scotland and his party's electoral chances in that country?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable for the Scottish poll tax regulations to be discussed for only one and a quarter hours, late at night, when they give snooping powers to the poll tax registrars that are not found in the original statute on which they are supposed to be based? Does he also accept that such slipshod drafting at the Scottish Office makes it all the more important that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up and allowed to get on with its work? How much longer must the people of Scotland wait for the Tory Whips to put their side of the House in order?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] is debated at some reasonable hour? We all understand that it is a pay-off for P and O's contribution to Tory party funds, but a fundamental attack on the employment rights of seafarers should not be debated in the dead of night.
Talking of the dead of night, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the orders setting up the Select Committee on televising the House are to be debated in the early hours of the morning? Is there any chance that the Committee will meet before Easter to start its important task?
I recognise all the problems about the timing of debates next week, but does the Leader of the House agree that a simple solution to all the problems would be to withdraw the Housing (Scotland) Bill and then abandon it?
Finally, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to announce an inquiry into the leak of the Prime Minister's letter on testing to the Secretary of State for Education?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions about the business for next week and other general matters. He suggests that Government business is in disarray. I do not know whether he has seen the article in the New Statesman today, written by one of his runners, which seems to indicate that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition are doing a good job. If he is under that illusion, he is happy with his thoughts.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to drop the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The answer is, no; it is an important Bill and we intend to proceed with it, as I announced a few minutes ago.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the community charge registration regulations. I have already made clear to the House that we regard the points at issue as minor and technical. Of course, it will be open to hon. Members to raise the matters in the debate. We propose that the debate should run for up to one and a half hours, which is more generous than if the prayer had been taken in the normal way.
As to the Scottish Select Committee, that is in the hands of the Committee of Selection. I have done what I can, and I hope that the deliberations of the Committee of Selection will be successful.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Merchant Shipping Bill. I believe that it is right that it should be taken next week. I think that the hour at which we shall proceed will be reasonable.
As to the debate on the television Select Committee, I regret that that will be late at night, but there is a lot of business to be got through and it is not unreasonable if it is to be dealt with as soon as possible. That is the most convenient time that I can find. As soon as the Committee is set up, I will be happy for it to meet.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about getting on with the appointment of the television Select Committee. The blame for the delay does not attach to him. Has my right hon. Friend noticed the unhappy tendency on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to slide out of the Chamber on these occasions and to subcontract the job of asking the question on business to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who reads out a bad list clumsily? Would it not be better if the Leader of the Opposition showed a bit of leadership for a change?

Mr. Wakeham: I would welcome the Leader of the Opposition if he were able to be present for business questions, but he is always very courteous and explains to me why he cannot be here. I accept that he has competing claims on his time, particularly over the next few months. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does his best, and I am all for encouraging him.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In arranging the business of the House, will the Leader of the House take account of the interest of those of us who wish to ask oral questions on Scottish legal affairs? As the business is presently arranged, hon. Members with an interest in these


matters have to choose between asking a general question on Scotland or a legal question. I understand that between 1974 and 1987 there was a separate and distinct opportunity to ask questions on Scottish legal affairs. Will the Leader of the House consider reinstituting that practice because of the large number of hon. Members who have an interest in these matters?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the difficulty for hon. Members on the Liberal Benches who have to make up their minds about the question which they will ask before they ask it. I will be happy to have discussions through the usual channels if the arrangements are not satisfactory. If there is any way of improving them, I shall do so.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I asked him on 11 February whether he would reinstitute the limit on speeches that existed in the previous Parliament? He said that he recognised that there was need for that. Is he aware that if the limit was reinstituted there would be considerably more opportunities for Back Benchers to make speeches? He said that he was having discussions through the usual channels. How are those discussions progressing?

Mr. Wakeham: Slowly, but hopefully we are making some progress. I am in favour of bringing the proposals forward, but I want to ensure that I have as much agreement on the matter as possible.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Leader of the House please put off the business relating to the Housing (Scotland) Bill so that we can have a full debate on the poll tax regulations? Is he aware that the regulations are vital to the substance of the poll tax in Scotland? My constituency is one of only two in Scotland in which constituents will benefit from the poll tax—even so they voted for me at the general election. Does the Leader of the House realise that my constituents are worried about the regulations and want a longer debate than the one that the right hon. Gentleman is providing? My constituents and the people of Scotland believe that it is outrageous for the matter to be tacked on at the end of a day's business and dealt with in only one and a half hours.

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I had been forthcoming in providing a debate that would be longer than the debate on a normal prayer. However, I have already been pressed on that point by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, I am unlikely to be more forthcoming to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) than to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for a change in the law regarding British summer time? Has he noted that the campaign calls for clocks not to be put back when they are put forward on the 27th? Has he also noted that the RSPA believes that putting the clocks back at the end of summer time has caused 60 child deaths and probably about 500 adult deaths? Whether we accept those statistics or not, is this not a serious matter which perhaps should be debated in the House at an early date?

Mr. Wakeham: The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I know that the staff in the House of Commons are hard pressed at times, but could a couple of carpenters be made available to make these Benches longer? I find it most distressing when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) comes in to the Chamber and pushes hon. Members like me around. It also seems unfair that one third of the right hon. Gentleman's party had to stand throughout Prime Minister's Question Time. Can something be done to prevent the bullying and ruffian tactics of the right hon. Member for Devonport?

Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that a big fellow like the hon. Gentleman should need my protection in these matters. As we approach the end of Lent, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might be more successful in losing a little weight and that might help him with his problem.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Has my right hon. Friend any plans for an early debate on the Griffiths report on community care?

Mr. Wakeham: I arranged last week for copies of the report to be placed in the Vote Office. At this stage I can give no firm undertaking about the timing of a possible debate. However, I will bear the point in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to a debate on the Griffiths report at the earliest opportunity because it is causing concern?
I appreciate that there is tremendous demand and pressure on time in the House, but the Leader of the House and others are aware of the concern for more time to be made available to debate the general situation in Northern Ireland. Has consideration been given to that? Would it be possible to have a debate about the possibility of bringing our laws into line with the laws of the Republic of Ireland with regard to terrorist propaganda on the media?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say more about the Griffiths report than I have already said.
As for the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that I have had a number of discussions with hon. Members from every party in the House about Northern Ireland legislation, over quite a long time. There are no proposals for change at present, but I am happy to continue discussions, and to and out whether there is a generally agreed way forward.

Sir John Farr: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, as part of his duties as Leader of the House, will take an opportunity to examine the proceedings of Standing Committee C. On Wednesday, it was decided by nine votes to eight to take the unusual step of sitting on Tuesday mornings and afternoons, Wednesday mornings and afternoons and Thursday mornings and afternoons.
I know that my right hon. Friend's immediate reply will be that he is rather glad not to be on that Committee—


as, indeed, am I. What is most important, however, is that the decision to put the Question in regard to this unusual—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the matter is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

Sir John Farr: I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the Question was put when a number of hon. Members were on their feet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. I am afraid that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In planning future business, will the Leader of the House take account of the real concern throughout Northern Ireland, in all the area health boards, about the limited funds available for the services that they provide? Will he recognise the need for rationalisation of hospital services for the whole Province, thereby avoiding inter-board conflict as the boards chase funds to maintain existing services? If the right hon. Gentleman could provide time, I feel that it would be beneficial and cost-effective in the long term for all of us.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman would like to be here tomorrow morning for the Easter Adjournment debate, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that he will be able to make his points then.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When we debate the Merchant Shipping Bill next week, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Minister responsible makes a statement on the safety aspect of the industrial dispute that is now paralysing the Channel ports? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is of course inappropriate for the Government to become involved in arguments about manning levels, nevertheless no one has yet answered the fundamental point put forward by the officers and seafarers that certain aspects of the proposed rest and shift patterns may present serious dangers to the ferries? The Government need to make a clear statement to ensure that any proposals put forward by P and O are in accordance with the merchant shipping regulations of 1982.

Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will say whatever is appropriate in next Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on a number of occasions before and after the general election, I asked him whether we could have a debate on the Select Committee report on the procedures and methods of the Boundary Commission? Does he consider that important — not least if there is a problem of seating with a House of 650?
The way in which the Boundary Commission now works is outside the control of the House, and it keeps increasing the number of Members of Parliament without any link to us. We ought to consider this matter; it is of great importance.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter, and I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about it.

Rev. William McCrea: Last night in my constituency there was a further attack on the members of

the security forces, the Army and RUC patrol, in Pomeroy. The continual—indeed, continuous — attack by the Provisional IRA has caused great fear in the Province as a whole. Will the Leader of the House arrange business to allow a proper, full-scale debate on the security position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham: I hope that I do not say anything that shows that I do not believe that the security situation is extremely serious, but I do not believe that it would be right to change the business next week to have a debate on that subject.

Mr. George Foulkes: I wonder whether you can help me, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Scottish Nationalists, who have expressed an interest in causing great trouble on these occasions, seem to be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be directed to the Leader of the House, not to me.

Mr. Foulkes: I wondered whether you had named those hon. Members while I was out, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the business to be considered late on Monday night is not technical and minor but vital? It is an outrage that a matter affecting the administration of the poll tax will be dealt with in one and a quarter hours, late at night, without adequate time for discussion. The 50 Scottish Labour Members will want to take part in the debate, but that will be impossible. Surely the Leader of the House can think again. There is all the time after Easter, when we shall be happy to spend a full day — two, if necessary — discussing this important matter.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the measure was originally tabled as a prayer. Because of the way in which I have arranged the debate, the time is slightly extended rather than reduced.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Some weeks ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the matter of the Short money allocations to minority parties. In view of the statement yesterday by the leader of the Liberal party that the BBC was right to stick to its principles over the film in Northern Ireland and the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that this was a disgrace, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind this further split in the amoeba-like qualities of the SLD and arrange for Short money to be divided accordingly?

Mr. Wakeham: I hope that I shall come to the House shortly with proposals on financial assistance to Opposition parties. I have a fairly clear view as to how to proceed. We shall have to wait and see whether the Opposition parties agree.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is growing realisation in the House as to how disastrous the introduction of television cameras may be to the proceedings of the House. The climate has certainly changed in the past few weeks—

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will get a star part.

Mr. Faulds: Will you be quiet for one moment, you loquacious, arrogant—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said nothing.

Mr. Faulds: We all have our tribulations, and how I sympathise with you, Mr. Speaker. You have all of them; I have only one or two.

Mr. Tony Banks: But my hon. Friend would not need a wig.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should change places and move down the Gangway.

Mr. Faulds: I should welcome a move nearer you, Sir, by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but not, for God's sake, on to the Labour Front Bench. I am trying to make an extremely serious point.
As the House will recognise, there has been growing realisation of the damage that the ridiculous introduction of television cameras will do. Therefore, is it satisfactory that the only chance that the House has to debate the composition of the Committee is late at night?
There are at least three good reasons why the debate should be in prime time next season. First, there is increasing opposition to the proposal. Secondly, the composition of the Committee in terms of the parliamentary Labour party's contribution was based on the choice of one hon. Member opposing the introduction and five backing it. It is extraordinary that the one who was chosen to oppose the measure has been in the House for only a few months and will not be nearly as effective as some other hon. Members. Thirdly, it is unacceptable to debate late at night this major issue, which will affect the reputation and public perception of how the House conducts its business, because late at night most of us—the healthy ones—have much better things to do.

Mr. Wakeham: I have already said that I am sorry that this business has to be taken late at night, but that is the best proposal for dealing with it next week. I shall certainly be here. I wonder whether the length of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals that he might have better things to do at that time. I hope that he will be here with us.

Mr. John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that some time ago I asked him what part Her Majesty's Government will play in the celebrations this summer to commemorate the 400 years since the Spanish Armada was defeated, a very great occasion in English history? Is he aware that beacons will be lit from Plymouth to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I hope that there will be a parade of troops, at Tilbury. What will the Government be doing?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a very important question. The best I can do is to invite my hon. Friend to have a drink with me and discuss what he thinks the Government should do.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that there will be questions to the Department of Energy on Monday? We have heard quite a lot in the House about safeguarding jobs in Scotland and the desire of the Secretary of State to bring jobs to Scotland. We accept and acknowledge that. Will the Leader of the House remind both the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland that they have a statutory responsibility for the electricity and coal industries in Scotland? May we have a statement on Monday on the progress of negotiations between the

SSEB and British Coal in regard to safeguarding mining jobs as there is tantamount to one union operating in the mining industry?

Mr. Wakeham: My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know full well their statutory responsibilities and they will discharge them. However, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question to them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a statement by the Government on the implications for the sovereignty of the House and for jobs in Britain of the instructions given yesterday in Brussels to a senior Government Minister that the Rover Group and British Aerospace merger should not go ahead unless the terms of the deal were approved in detail by the EEC and until there is a six-month review? As this is obviously a serious matter, and has been widely commented on in almost all this morning's papers, will the Government say what has happened, why it has happened and what are the implications?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said something after his meeting yesterday. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to him to find out whether it is necessary for him to say anything further next week.

Mr. David Winnick: Will there be a statement on whether other Cabinet Ministers will be spending their time picking up litter from parks when it has been specially put down for that purpose? Is the Leader of the House aware that, while the publicity-crazy Prime Minister was happy to do that, if other Cabinet Ministers were to engage in the same task they might cause less damage to the country than they do when they work in their own Departments?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon Gentleman has included rubbish in many of his questions in the House. However, this is the first time that I have heard him do it so directly. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to take the initiative and to try to help in the big task of clearing up litter throughout the country.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain carefully to the House why he has not yet been able to set up a Select Committee on Procedure? There are matters such as the way in which we deal with European questions, including the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has just mentioned. European legislation is poorly dealt with in the House and there are great implications. There is also the issue of Members' behaviour. Many hon. Members believe that that should be reviewed and fines imposed on those who abuse the Chair. There is also the way in which the guillotine operates to prevent Back Benchers from taking part in, for example, the debate on the Education Reform Bill last night when most Back-Bench Members' amendments were not reached.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend has a number of points which he would like to be discussed by a Select Committee on Procedure. I have said that I should like such a Committee to be set up, but I cannot add anything more to what I have said about the matter in previous weeks. We are doing the best we can.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I was disappointed by the reply that the Leader of the House gave on Monday when a question was put to him about the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee, because since I have been in this place I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a reasonable man. I ask him to look at early-day motion 768 on the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee.
[That this House mindful of the fact that the Welsh language is a native language of one of the nations of Britain, and is spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in Wales and many other people in other parts of the United Kingdom, calls for the use of the Welsh language to be permitted in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee, using simultaneous translation facilities.]
It shows that this is not a party issue. The motion has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not even a linguistic issue because the motion has been signed by English, Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament. This question is of great importance to the House. In his reply on Monday, the right hon. Member suggested that it was a matter for the House, not for him. Will he therefore reconsider the holding of a debate on this question?

Mr. Wakeham: In all charity, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was disappointed by the reply that I gave on Monday he will have many disappointments in his career in the House of Commons, because I thought that I was as reasonable as I could be in the circumstances.
The Government share the desire of hon. Members to safeguard the Welsh language, but I do not believe that it would be practical to conduct any aspect of the business of the House in a language other than English. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that there are other more practical means of supporting the Welsh language, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is now actively considering. If the hon. Gentleman were able to be present tomorrow for the Easter Adjournment debate, perhaps he could make a speech on the subject, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I allude to the question that was put by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Today there is to be further discussion under the timetable motion of the Education Reform Bill. It would be very helpful if hon. Members could put brief questions to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Before the Government were sidetracked into signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which enables Ministers of the Irish Republic to pressurise Ministers of this country in private, there was a proposal that a parliamentary tier should be added to the then Anglo-Irish Council. When it was suggested that such a parliamentary tier should be created, my right hon. Friend's predecessor used to say that this was a matter for the House of Commons, not for the Government. It looks as though we need a new initiative and, indeed, an opportunity for parliamentarians on both sides to argue in public about Anglo-Irish relations, so should not this proposal be resuscitated? Will my right hon. Friend say that it is a matter for the House and not the Government, because he is the Leader of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I am quite happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is indeed a matter for the House. If there is a strong desire in all parts of the House, we shall see how we go from there.

Mr. Max Madden: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 864?
[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic and moral responsibility will prevail.]
Does he not agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament, speaking in the safety and security of the House of Commons, to pontificate on the civic and moral responsibility of men and women who often place themselves in great danger to report to the public what is happening throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and around the world? Will he go and see the Prime Minister, take with him the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), try to knock some sense into her and show her the statement by the National Union of Journalists, issued this week, that says that if journalists are perceived to be collectors of evidence to give to the authorities and that if their impartiality is called into question they will be placed in very great danger—in even more danger than they are now? If the Prime Minister's real motive is to deny to the public of this country information about the barbarity of terrorism, the only victors will be the men of violence who believe that political change can be brought about only by violence.

Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's desire would be the same as the Prime Minister's — to bring to book the people who perpetrated those terrible murders in Belfast on Saturday and to speed it up in every possible way. The RUC called yesterday on the BBC and ITN and took possession of film of the events surrounding the murder of the two soldiers in west Belfast on 19 March. I hope that this material will be of considerable assistance to the RUC in the major murder inquiry that it has now instituted.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend have a clear idea after Easter of when the Criminal Justice Bill will return to the Floor of the House so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to debate and vote on capital punishment?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall report to the House as soon as I am able to do so, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any news today.

Mr. Greville Janner: Could there be an early debate on the danger of solvent abuse to young people? Is the Minister aware that about three youngsters die each week from solvent abuse and that in recent weeks two have suffered this tragedy within the city of Leicester — one being the 14-year-old son of a most respected councillor? Will he please ask the Home Secretary what steps have been taken, what steps he is taking and what steps he proposes to take in order to meet a menace that is, alas, growing all the time?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman a debate next week, but I certainly undertake to report to the Home Secretary on the point that he raised.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Given my right hon. Friend's wider responsibilities as Leader of the whole House, does he agree that if parliamentary democracy is to operate efficiently, and that if minority rights are to be respected, it is vital that the decisions of the Chair should be respected? Is it not a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend, therefore, that a senior Member of this House, a member of the Chairmen's Panel, voted against his motion to suspend an hon. Member who had been named by Mr. Deputy Speaker during the Budget statement?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital for the proper running of this House that the decisions of Mr. Speaker are upheld. I hope that all hon. Members will support Mr. Speaker in his very difficult task.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the seizure of the film from the BBC and ITV? The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the jeopardy in which every BBC and ITN reporter, camera man, crew man and sound recordist is placed. It is a very important issue that cannot be swept to one side.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a debate on the Jarvis plc report that was published this week and sent to every hon. Member?
There have been leaked documents from the Secretary of State for Transport about the Settle to Carlisle railway. It is a long-standing issue. I have asked the Leader of the House on at least three occasions for a statement. The matter ought to be cleared up, since one Government Department has produced a useful report that advocates retention of the line while the Department of Transport is busy trying to sabotage it and get it closed.

Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that the BBC and ITN handed over film taken at the event in order to assist the RUC in its major murder inquiry. I believe that that was the right and proper way to proceed.
As for the Carlisle to Settle railway, the recent Jarvis report is a helpful contribution to the debate, and the Secretary of State will take it fully into account before reaching his decision.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: If my right hon. Friend decides to disburse taxpayers' funds to minority political parties, will he take into account the fact that the Scottish National party Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had no sooner been allowed to return to the House after his expulsion from it than he stated that he intends to increase parliamentary disruption and guerrilla tactics and to destroy democracy? He is supported in that view by his two colleagues. If those who wish to disrupt Parliament do not want to take part in the democratic process, I suggest that they should not be funded to do so.

Mr. Wakeham: The question of the Short money will be a matter for the House, not for me, to decide. My hon. and learned Friend referred to press reports about threatened disruption of the proceedings of the House. I cannot believe that any Members who have been elected by the democratic process would seek to rely on unparliamentary means to achieve their objective.

Mr. William McKelvey: Would the Leader of the House make a progress report —if that is the proper term—on the fate of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? I understand that in response to the letter that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, he wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Would it be possible to divulge the contents of that letter so that we might have some hope?

Mr. Wakeham: The letter that I wrote was to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It is up to him to decide how to proceed, having received that letter. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. John M. Taylor: In considering shorter speeches, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to shorter questions, and perhaps give the House some guidance?

Mr. Wakeham: The short answer is yes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the concern about parliamentary behaviour, would not next week be a good time to discuss early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622 and 627?
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had


not been achieved… He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Britian and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
Would the Leader of the House expand on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the letter from the Prime

Minister's private secretary, Mr. Gray, to Mr. Jeffrey of the Department of Education and Science? When I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science about that letter in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, as reported in column 233 of Hansard, he replied—at his most charming and with that famous smile of his—that I should address such questions to the Prime Minister. When I went to the Table Office, the learned Clerks told me that the Prime Minister has blocked every question on this issue.
The Leader of the House says that he has nothing to add, but he has said nothing, so I do not know what he has nothing to add to. There is an easy solution to all this: go and ask Mr. Ingham what he did.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If I or any of my right hon. or hon. Friends were to put up for the leadership of the Conservative party against the Prime Minister, it would certainly be futile, it might well be selfish, and it would certainly be self-defeating. If we were to have a debate on the subject, would the leadership of the Government have the arrogance and the antidemocratic gracelessness to say so?

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is a certain hypothetical ring about his question.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House have a view on why Privy Councillors should be given priority in being called in debates?

Mr. Wakeham: By and large, I think the traditions of the House have stood the process of time and provide us with the best way to proceed. I am always open to suggestions, however, and I consider them carefully—especially those made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see early-day motion 864 on the tapes of the funerals at Andersonstown last week?
[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic' and moral responsibility will prevail.]
Has he also had an opportunity to look at the article in The Independent, in which it is pointed out that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is the Liberal party spokesman for Northern Ireland, agreed that the tapes should be handed over but that an hour or so later he was contradicted by his leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? In the light of the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland, may we have a debate on this matter —particularly so that the Liberal party can explain its new-found unity on the position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham: I find it inconceivable that any responsible person should think that the BBC and ITN should not hand over the films, given the seriousness of the situation in west Belfast. But I have no ministerial responsibility for the views of the Liberal party.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that we have a timetable motion on the subsequent business and I therefore ask for brief questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of what the Prime Minister has said about single unions at Dundee, will the Leader of the House ask her whether she would now be in favour of a single union at GCHQ?
In view of the creative litter-placing that took place last Wednesday, will the right hon Gentleman also ask her whether the Secretary of State for the Evironment will come to the Dispatch Box to explain who will pay for the placing of that litter? Will the councillors be surcharged for wasting ratepayers' money? Will the BBC be asked to deliver all its untransmitted film, including the shot in which, unfortunately for her, the Prime Minister missed one of the pieces of carefully placed litter and picked up some genuine rubbish?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that anything in the hon. Gentleman's diatribe requires me to say anything other than no.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware how insulting it is both to Scottish Members of Parliament and to the people of Scotland that we will have only an hour and a half to debate the regulations dealing with the whole procedure of implementing the unwanted and unfair poll tax? Is not that a reflection of the fact that the Minister is incapable of putting a proper case and that the Government have no arguments in favour of the tax worthy to put to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: The reason why an hour and a half is adequate is that the points at issue are minor and technical —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I know that Opposition Members do not accept that, but I am not prepared to shift from that ground.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Leader of the House realise that his dismissal of the regulations as minor and technical will be deeply resented in Scotland where people are only too well aware of the serious civil liberties implications of the regulations? Does he not realise that the Scots will see him as acting like a thief in the night, trying to slip through highly controversial regulations without proper debate or analysis of their impact on the Scottish people?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the points that the hon. Gentleman made about me were exactly flattering. Clearly he did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. I said, not that the community charge registration regulations were minor and trivial, but that the points at issue were minor and trivial.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the Leader of the House aware that only this morning Standing Committee E, dealing with the poll tax legislation for England and Wales, was debating clauses that affect Scotland? One clause added a new exempted category—visiting forces. The Minister was pressed about the category of severely mentally handicapped people as early in the Committee's proceedings as February, but he has still not found time to discuss the matter with his Scottish colleagues. The regulations, which are described as minor and technical, are to go before the House at 10 pm on Monday, yet the matter is still being discussed in Committee.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I would be in order if I were to discuss the proceedings of a Standing Committee, but I shall certainly refer the hon. Lady's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will not the Leader of the House accept that the Scottish poll tax regulations are virtually incomprehensible to lay people, and about as readable as a Russian novel? Does he not accept that most people will not understand what is required of them, and will he join me in advising everyone in Scotland who receives a form to go to the registration officer or send the form back without further question?

Mr. Wakeham: No; and I think that the hon. Gentleman's points are more appropriate to the debate than to business questions.

Dr. John Reid: May I caution the Leader of the House against spending too much time bothering about the proposed consistent disruption of the House by certain Members of the Scottish National party? In order to disrupt, they would have to be here and, judging by the SNP's past record, there will be precious little attendance or disruption.
Would the Leader of the House therefore spend more time addressing himself to the question that has been raised about the poll tax regulations? He may recall that I raised this matter last Thursday. On that occasion the Leader of the House described as "minor and technical" the fact that the regulations were unlawful. How can a Government who place so much stress on the necessity to act within the law then decide to allow one minute for each Scottish Member to discuss the imposition of unlawful regulations in Scotland so that they can push through what is already widely regarded as an unfair poll tax?

Mr. Wakeham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not treat these things lightly. I know that he raised the matter with me previously. I have given the matter long thought and decided to do what I have announced to the House this afternoon. I do not think that I made a mistake in doing so.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House accept that, if by any chance he believes that what is being put through on Monday night is minor and technical, he is suffering from a severe delusion? What is being put through in an hour and a half on Monday night is the whole business of registration and the designation of a responsible person within a household. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this thing is to be bludgeoned through without explanation or debate and in the midst of total confusion, it will be no surprise when literally millions of people in Scotland follow the advice of Opposition Members and send the forms back? Indeed, the Government have invited them to send the forms back if they do not understand them. They will be sent back and the Leader of the House will bear responsibility for that. Seventy five per cent. of Scottish opinion is totally opposed to the poll tax. It can command 15 per cent. support. In fact, 15 per cent. of Scottish Tories are demanding a campaign of non-payment. Yet, in an hour and half on Monday night, this gobbledegook is to be shuffled through. The forms will be sent back, and the Government will be responsible.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is under a bit of a misapprehension as to exactly what is happening on Monday night. If he is at the debate, he may find out.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I wonder when the Leader of the House will find time for another debate on rising crime. In the west midlands and my constituency many thousands of people live in fear and frustration. In the west midlands, despite an appeal by the committee of the west midlands police authority and the police chief, we are still awaiting fulfilment of the promises that have been made with regard to improving our community policing. We are short of resources. From the Autumn Statement we learned that the Home Secretary and the Government are committed to investing more funds in the police. May we have an early debate so that we may know, certainly in the west midlands, whether we will be able to offer something tangible and concrete to the people of our conurbation?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. He will recognise that the Government have allocated an extra £500 million in the coming financial year for the fight against crime and for the upholding of law and order. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject because we have a lot of other matters with which to deal. However, he might like to try his luck tomorrow in the Easter Adjournment debate.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 738, which has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House calls for the return of British Standard Time in order to provide an extra hour of daylight that will reduce the number of road accidents, probably by 600 fatal and serious accidents every year according to research findings, reduce crime and energy consumption and increase opportunities for tourist and leisure activities.]
Yesterday, the motion was supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents because it says that the restoration of British standard time will reduce fatal and serious accidents by 600 per year. The evidence from the Policy Studies Institute shows that British standard time or a combination of British standard time and double British summer time would produce prodigious savings in fuel and lighting, ease trade communication with the continent, and expand the availability of leisure facilities, especially for the very young and elderly. In view of the savings to be made in resources and human life, and in view of the long period that would be necessary to make the change, does not the Leader of the House consider that to be a prime and urgent priority?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I answered a question on that subject earlier. In case he was not, I will repeat what I said. The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently. I know that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of making sure that his views are expressed to the Government at the appropriate time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 868 concerning the problems facing the Kurdish people in Iraq?
[That this House is alarmed at the continuing persecution of Kurdish people in Iraq; records its horror at the way all Kurdish people have been treated in their struggle for a Kurdish nation; demands that Her Majesty's Government request the United Nations to send an independent mission to Iraq to seek safeguards for the Kurdish people and that the International Red Cross be requested to send essential supplies to save the lives of Kurdish people in Iraq.]
Can he find time for a debate on foreign affairs when such matters can be raised, but, in the meantime, will he communicate urgently to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the need to put pressure on the United Nations to send a team of observers to Iraq to see what has happened there and on the International Red Cross to send urgent medical supplies?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today the Committee of Kurdish Organisations in Britain has delivered a letter to the Prime Minister pointing out that already 21,000 have died in Halabja following cyanide and other chemical weapon attacks on the town by the Government of Iraq? The very least that the British Government should, indeed must, do is to demand an end to all chemical warfare and an end to the attacks on the Kurdish people and put pressure on all international agencies to bring urgent humanitarian relief to end the tragic loss of life.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand the feelings expressed in the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred and that was made clear by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in answer to a written question on 11 March. We deplore the denial of human rights wherever that may occur. The International Red Cross cannot enter or act within a country without the permission or invitation of that country's Government. However, I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 874 relating to the impending execution of Michael Lucas tomorrow in South Africa?
[That this House deplores the execution of Tsepo Letsoara in South Africa on 18th March and the impending execution of Michael Lucas on 25th March; expresses its grave concern that the apartheid regime is resorting increasingly to the use of the death penalty against opponents of apartheid; recalls the interventions made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the Sharpeville Six; and appeals to the Foreign Secretary to intervene immediately with the South African authorities to ensure the commuting of the death sentence on Michael Lucas and all others on death row for their alleged involvement in activities relating to the opposition to apartheid.]
May we please have a debate immediately after Easter on the situation in South Africa so that we can make sure that the views of the House with regard to the possible judicial murder of the Sharpeville six is communicated in a direct way to the South African Government in view of the failure of the Prime Minister to intervene directly with P.W. Botha?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, nor do I accept the terms of early-day motion 874. We are prepared to make appeals for clemency on humanitarian grounds only in exceptional cases, and the case of Mr. Lucas does not meet our criteria for representations. We will, of course, be having a foreign affairs debate in the not too distant future, but I cannot promise a date for that debate now.

Points of Order

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you and the House are in some difficulty following the business statement. It is clear that the Leader of the House has no idea what the motion on the poll tax, which is to be debated on Monday, is about. He has repeatedly said that it is of a minor and technical nature. However, it sets up the whole registration procedure for the poll tax.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments on that because, Mr. Speaker, you would be right not to allow me to do so. However, I do believe that you and the House are m difficulty. The Leader of the House has made a statement about something that he does not understand and knows nothing about. When asked about the Committee stage of a Bill that affects that motion, again he knew nothing about it. In those circumstances, is it within your power, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House to take the regulations away, think about them again, do his homework and, when they are properly drafted and worked out, tell us what he is going to do?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am not responsible for the order of business in the House. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands fully what it is about, and I shall look forward to hearing what it is all about.

Mr. Julian Brazier: During the course of Questions to the Prime Minister the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an outrageous allegation that was very clearly audible on the Benches on this side and which I ask you to call upon him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I may say to the hon. Gentleman that I heard a disturbance, but I heard no words that were disorderly.

Mr. Tony Banks: What was it?

Mr. Brazier: The allegation that the hon. Member for Newham North-West made was that the Prime Minister had only attended the funeral of the two corporals so brutally murdered in Ulster—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to me to be like a continuation of Question Time. Sadly, the noise at Prime Minister's Question Time has greatly increased and I deeply regret it. It is not always possible at this end of the Chamber to hear what goes on below the Gangway or across the Chamber. If that remark was made, I would certainly regret it, but it was not a disorderly remark. It was not part of the proceedings of the House because I had not called the hon. Member to speak.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House referred to the statutory instrument on the collection of the poll tax in Scotland. It is the subject of a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In the ordinary course of events those reports are not debated, because it depends upon the Leader of the House tabling them for debate. The Leader of the House commented that it was because of a prayer limited to an hour and a half that the debate was to take place. Can I make it clear that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would certainly


welcome a debate on its 18th report, which covers several instruments in addition to the poll tax instrument referred to?
If the Leader of the House is concerned that this is only a prayer and that the time is therefore limited to an hour and a half, and if he wishes to spend a whole day on the report, I am sure that that will be welcomed by members of the Committee and Members on both sides of the House, so that we can have an in-depth investigation and demonstrate that this is not a minor and technical matter. The Joint Committee has made a very serious report. It is an all-party Committee empowered by the House to make sure that the House receives a report if there are serious deficiencies. Those serious deficiencies have been reported. It is misleading for the Leader of the House to suggest that a report of this nature is a trivial matter when serious considerations are involved.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). You bear a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for trying to maintain the reputation of the House. We sit here and receive virtually constant lectures from Government supporters about law and order, the traditions of the House and maintaining the order and dignity of the House. But Opposition Members feel that what the Government are doing — taking powers in regulations which greatly exceed the powers given in the basic statute and giving a public official extra-parliamentary, unlawful snooping powers against the people of Scotland — will do more damage to the reputation of the House than all the yah-booing of the centuries.
We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether you can prevail upon the Government to treat this matter seriously. It is crucial that the House should not be expected to give to public snoopers powers that they do not possess in statutes. If we are not going to jib at that, God knows, we are not going to jib at anything.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the strong feelings about this matter, but the House knows that it is not in the power or the authority of the Chair to do what the hon. Gentleman has requested. The matter will be debated, and that is the time at which these arguments should be strongly made.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am asking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has misled the House in reply to a question of mine about the scale of psychological operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: No. I say to the hon. Gentleman that no hon. Member misleads the House. The hon. Member may inadvertently have said something with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees, but he has not misled the House.

Mr. Livingstone: That was why I did not say something stronger. I thought that "misled" might have been in order. If it is not, I withdraw it. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman has been misguided inadvertently by his civil servants. Given that I cannot say that someone has lied to

the House, what must I now do to expose what has happened? Do I raise it with you, Mr. Speaker, or through some motion that I put forward?

Mr. Speaker: Do not raise it with me, because I am not responsible for what is said from the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman must consult his hon. Friends about the parliamentary ways in which he can achieve his objective.

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to sub judice that arose this morning in one of the Standing Committees. When a Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise with me in the Chamber what goes on in Standing Committee. If he is alleging a breach of privilege or anything of that kind, he should write to me. He cannot raise with me what goes on in Standing Committee, because that is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not for the Speaker in the Chamber.

Mr. Mullin: I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker. It relates to sub judice in reference to the continued claiming by Home Office Ministers of sub judice when questioned on anything relating to the Birmingham pub bombings. I have in front of me the sub judice resolution, which says that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now doing what I have said that he cannot do. These are matters which he must raise with the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not on the Floor of the House. I cannot help him with what goes on in Standing Committees. It is not within my authority or power to do so.

Mr. Mullin: This matter has been raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. I am just inviting you to elaborate on it in the light of the wording of the text of the resolution of the House on sub judice matters, which says that sub judice should be claimed only according to the discretion of the Chair if there is
real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
I cannot see that anything that is said in the House constitutes a
real and substantial danger of prejudice
when any judgment that may or may not be made will be made by five Law Lords, who could not possibly be influenced by anything that anyone in this place or anywhere else had to say and whose impartiality is not challenged.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well understands the sub judice rule and the reason why we have it in the House. The hon. Gentleman is expressing a view on whether what is said here may or may not influence the Law Lords, but I am bound by the sub judice rule laid down in our rules.

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and discuss this matter I shall be very happy for him to do that, but not on the Floor of the House, especially on a day when we have a timetable motion, with a very large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I will see the hon. Gentleman about it privately.

Adjournment (Easter)

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that on Thursday 31 March up to nine Members may raise with Ministers


subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING)

Mr. George Foulkes, supported by Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Alan Amos, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Henry McLeish and Mr. Alastair Darling, presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 so as to provide for the control of smoking in places of work, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 99

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 95, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert 'The following section'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 254 to 260, and Nos. 240 and 242.

Mrs. Rumbold: Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 inclusive are all designed to clarify the borderlines between secondary and further education. The 1944 Act defined further education as including all full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age, but it also stated that further education could be provided only in accordance with further education schemes that had been approved by the Secretary of State. This meant that the dividing line between the schools and further education sectors could be determined in each case by what was set out in the scheme. In particular, it made it possible to determine that a school that provided for those over 16 was still a school, because it was not specified in the local education authority's scheme as being part of its further education service. Instead, it was provided by the local education authority in pursuance of its duty under the 1944 Act to secure the provision of sufficient secondary education.
The further education schemes procedure set out in the 1944 Act is repealed by clause 99. This means that we need to find an alternative mechanism for setting the boundary between the schools and further education sectors. As drafted, the clause does not quite do that. It draws on the 1944 Act in defining further education as including all education and training for persons over compulsory school age, but this needs to be qualified to ensure that post-16 provision in the schools sector remains classified as secondary education, and riot further education. This need is most obvious in relation to sixth-form colleges, which are currently classified as schools. Since sixth-form colleges cater for only 16 to 19-year-olds, they would fall wholly within the definition of further education in the clause. Obviously, this could cause considerable confusion, so we have decided that the position needs to be sorted out.
Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 are designed to rectify the problem. As schools, sixth-form colleges may not, under existing law, provide for part-time students or students over the age of 19, other than in exceptional cases. Government amendment No. 255, which is the key amendment in the group, therefore provides that full-time education for 16 to 19-year-olds is not to be regarded as further education if it is provided by


an institution which does not provide part-time or post-19 education other than in exceptional cases. This means that provision in sixth-form colleges is to be considered secondary education, not further education, and the colleges themselves are to be considered schools, not FE colleges, which effectively has been the understanding of most of the local education authorities up to now, although it has not been strictly following the 1944 Act.
Most of the other amendments in this group are consequential, defining the terms used and tidying up the drafting. Government amendment No. 242 is significant, however. It allows a breathing space for any institutions which are now classified as FE colleges, but which do not have significant numbers of part-time and post-19 students and would therefore fall to be classified as institutions of secondary education under Government amendment No. 255. As far as we know, only two colleges are in that position. Their authorities have been notified of the Government's intentions. Government amendment No. 242 will give them until the end of 1989 to make whatever changes to the pattern of their enrolments are necessary to continue to be classified as further education colleges. The two colleges in question are New college, Swindon and Alton college in Hampshire.
The amendments are not designed to change the institutional pattern. They are designed solely to recognise and legitimise the pattern that already exists. It is self-evidently important that we have secure definitions of secondary and further education which do not overlap, and which allow all concerned to know where they stand. Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 make it clear where the dividing line between the sectors is to be. I hope that they will be welcomed.
Government amendments Nos. 240 and 241 relate to clause 184, which specifies when the various clauses in the Bill will come into effect. They provide that the clauses on further education should take effect on Royal Assent.
Clause 99 is fundamental to the further and higher education sections of the Bill, in that it sets the framework of definitions and powers relating to further and higher education. It therefore needs to be brought into effect as soon as possible.
The amendment also brings the clauses on delegation in FE into line with the clauses on delegation to schools, which again come into effect on Royal Assent. It is still our intention to require all schemes — for both the school and further education sectors — to be submitted for approval by September 1989. Bringing the clauses into effect on Royal Assent will encourage local education authorities and colleges to set to work promptly on drawing up the schemes required by clause 116. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the whole, Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has just said because it brings clarity, but there should be a little more probing so that we could have a little more information. However, as the guillotine falls on this part of further education at 6 o'clock, we feel that it would be far better for the House to allow that probing to take place in the House of Lords and for us to move on to the next

group of amendments, when we can have a much more wide-ranging debate on the problems for further education that are presented by the Bill. Therefore, the Opposition do not want to say anything more about the amendments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I should like to be brief by asking just two questions. First, in the Paul Gray-Tom Jeffrey correspondence, the Prime Minister referred to an "elaborate and complex" system. Those are the words of Downing street. Have the Education Ministers been able to satisfy the Prime Minister about the complexity and elaborateness of their system, and have they won that, albeit narrow, part of the argument?
Secondly, I went to the Table Office to do what the Secretary of State suggested I do — to ask the Prime Minister by what alchemy her letter arrived on the table of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The Secretary of State will not be entirely surprised to learn that the Table Office finds that all questions to the Prime Minister are neatly blocked on this issue, so it is back into his court, at some convenient moment, to enlighten us.

Mrs. Rumbold: These amendments relate to further and higher education, and I was discussing the statutory provisions under which the amendments will operate.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I beg to move amendment No. 436, in page 96, line 3, after 'further', insert 'and continuing'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 388, in page 96, line 32, after 'shall', insert—
'in formulating any local scheme under this section'.
No. 389, in line 40, at end insert—
'(6A) A local education authority shall have a duty to consult the Manpower Services Commission, any institution within the PCFC funding sector in their area, and the PCFC and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education courses for the purpose of co-ordination the efficient and flexible provision of such courses for, or available for use by persons living in, their area.'.
No. 469, in line 40, at end insert—
'(6A) It shall be the duty of a local education authority to make arrangements for the adequate provision of adult and continuing education services for their area in accordance with the provisions of this section'.
No. 390, in line 41, at end insert
'for the purposes of a local scheme drawn up in accordance with this section—'.
No. 437, in line 42, at end insert 'and continuing'.
No. 391, in line 44, at end insert
'and to coordinate the provisions of such facilities by institutions within the PCFC funding sector'.
No. 470, in page 98, line 1, at end insert—
'(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall—'
No. 471, in line I, at end insert—
(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall, in determining such arrangements, have regard to the needs of sections of the community who are disadvantaged as users of the education service'.
No. 472, in line 1, at end insert—
'(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall—



(a) in determining such arrangements, consult with local voluntary organisations and such other persons as they think fit;
(b) in determining such arrangements, include and publicise arrangements to support voluntary organisations carrying out activities covered by (a) above;
(c) make facilities available to enable the provision of initial and in-service training of full-time and part-time staff, including as appropriate volunteers and members of voluntary organisations'.

Dr. Hampson: It is with great pleasure that I find myself leading this section of amendments on further education. It gives me the opportunity to say in passing how extraordinary many of us find it that, with all the skills that the Opposition Front Bench can muster, they manage to end up this evening in all three sections of the guillotine without a single lead amendment. It is gratifying, therefore, to see that they have all added their names to my amendment. Obviously that means that my amendment is of such power and obvious common sense that I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will accept it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote for it?

Dr. Hampson: Indeed. Amendments Nos. 436 and 437 are admirable and innocuous, although I would hesitate to say the same about some of the other amendments that are attached to amendment No. 436.
We found ourselves in a similar position last night when, for some peculiar reason, the Opposition again found themselves incapable by their tactics of managing to establish an amendment that would have highlighted in a vote some of the key central feelings of hon. Members of all parties about the main parts of the Bill. It is a pity—

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: This is the intervention that I sought to make yesterday in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but he refused to let me intervene. Is it not the case that there was a substantial revolt on the Government Benches on the question of the voting procedures for opting out, which, because of incompetence in the way in which the amendments were moved, was never revealed?

Dr. Hampson: I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman on the question of the competence or otherwise of the Opposition. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would not want me to go down the road of opting-out, except to say, for future reference in the other place, that at least a score of my hon. Friends felt that some adjustment in terms of a simple majority would have been a good thing.
I admit that this small and reasonable amendment is more symbolic than of substance. Although it is symbolic, it is important to hon. Members of all parties. I pay tribute especially to Gerry Fowler, who is now the rector of North East London polytechnic, and who was the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science three times. He epitomised the political law of diminishing returns. He was three times in the same job, each time for a shorter period than previously. For a number of years he and travelled the country arguing for what was then fashionably called recurrent education. The education system must be geared to the increasing pace of change of industry's requirements. Professional people and the

entrepreneurs of whom we on this side think so highly must improve their qualifications and come up to date with the latest knowledge, whether in the realms of management or on the shop Floor.
We are seeking to legitimise the new consensus that has emerged in favour of continuing education, ranging from retraining and updating to second chance opportunities for people who missed out at school and to managers who require the latest skills. Information technology is an obvious example of an area where such training is essential. If Britain is to retain its position as a leading economy, people must have the opportunity to update and improve their skills in information technology.
The Bill is the first piece of education law that mentions the term "continuing education". It does so only in brackets in new section 41(2), which states that further education must include
in the case of vocational education or training, continuing education or training for persons already in employment".
It is a pity that that is in brackets and that it comes after vocational education and training, because, in a way, it subsumes that. It falls under the scope of clause 99, which deals with the duties placed on local education authorities with regard to further education.
We have changed the definitions in this piece of legislation. The category of further education used to be divided into advanced and non-advanced. If we had kept that, further education, as a catch-all phrase, would have been adequate, but we have now switched to further education, meaning non-advanced education, and higher education. The use of the word "continuing" implies that the provisions are limited to non-advanced education. Officials may believe that that is appropriate for a specific reason. After all, further education is now the main responsibility of local education authorities. They still have other responsibilities in mixed economy colleges, which have a large element of higher education, although they are owned by local education authorities.
Ministers are mistaken in not changing the requirements in respect of mixed ability colleges to give them a fairer crack of the whip. The funding council should be obliged to recognise the requirements of those colleges. This is the only part of the higher education system for which local authorities have direct responsibility. The Bill may be intended to have specific regard for such training below degree level.
The reference in new section 41 to further and continuing education is a broad definition. It refers to continuing education across the spectrum of post-school learning. There may be an alternative. For example, the Bill states that a local authority shall have power to secure provision of facilities for higher education. That makes me suspicious, as the Bill refers only to higher education and not to continuing education.
Let us be open and give a full blessing to continuing education. Let us not be half-hearted. Let us recommend it as something that every part of the system must pursue. A system must be put together, bearing in mind the needs of individual areas. In many northern areas, for example, industry has declined and there is a need to introduce new industries and to update the work force. We ought to consider the entire spectrum of provision and say, "What have we got in our colleges? What can the mixed economy colleges, such as Bradford, offer? What role can universities play? Where does the Open University fit in?'
Failing the creation of a new regional structure, the institutional body to tackle this issue should be the local education authority. Although universities might not like that, local education authorities should consider the spectrum of continuing provision in all the institutions in their areas. This requirement should be placed upon them, rather than simply a requirement to have regard to continuing provision in further education colleges.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a little churlish of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to complain that we allowed him to open the debate on this group of amendments, rather than to be pleased about doing so. We can spend a great deal of time playing parliamentary games as to who has the lead amendment, but it would be more useful to people if we spent our time on the substance of the issues.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West also claimed that we had failed to exploit the opportunity that there might have been a revolt on the Government Benches. Conservative Members made that virtually impossible when they voted for the guillotine motion. If there had been any possibility of revolt, the Government Whips would have ensured that the earlier debate would have continued and that there would have been no possibility of a vote on an issue which might have caused a minor revolt. The hon. Gentleman should also reflect on the performance of his colleagues in Committee. Time after time, they said that they were going to do something, but, as soon as the Minister looked at them, they backed off. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to make such remarks.
This is a major opportunity for us to discuss further education. This is the third day that we have debated the Bill on the Floor of the House. It reminds me of the funfair in the local park to which I looked forward as a child. There was great excitement when it arrived, but it turned out to be disappointing. The national curriculum could well be that roller coaster which was exciting when one was on it for a moment or two—it might have made some people sick—but, a day or two later, it had disappeared. The opt-out section could be the coconut-shy, when most people missed with their aim and those people who won a coconut found that it was rather mouldy. The further education provisions remind me of the lucky dip, where one rummaged around in the sawdust and ended up with the suspicion that very little had been put in. That is the tragedy of the Bill.
It is a tragedy that further education has been treated so scantily in the Bill. Further education is probably the area in which this country's performance is worst at present. If the Government were serious about raising standards, they should have concentrated on improving continuing education rather than on school provision and higher education.

Dr. Hampson: There have been complaints about underfunding of schools and higher education, but, throughout the Government's term of office, no one has complained about the growth in spending on further education. That may have come mostly through the MSC, but it has been the most substantial increase in funding of further education provided by any Government since the war.

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Tuesday's debate, he would have heard us say how

ridiculous it is that, whereas the Manpower Services Commission has grasped the nettle by doing something for 16 to 19-year-olds, the Department of Education and Science has sat back and done nothing. It certainly gave youngsters no financial incentive to stay on in education rather than be lured away to training. We have seen little development in that area. For example, access courses tend to be dominated by initiatives from local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. It is sad that almost all the initiatives for 16 to 19-year-olds have come from the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission rather than the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
5 pm
I have some reservations about developing the concept of further education within the confines of a narrow box. There are too many boxes for education in Britain. Primary, secondary, further and higher education are put into separate boxes. Those boxes may be necessary for bureaucratic convenience, but it is important that they do not get in the way of educational developments, and, in particular, the education of the individual. I fear that the emphasis that the Bill places on the break between further and higher education will get in the way of good educational development.
We support the amendment that seeks to emphasise further education as part of continuing education. We also want to emphasise the need for local development plans to co-ordinate the activities of further and higher education within a locality. One of the worrying things about removing higher education from local authorities is that such co-ordination will be more difficult in many areas. In an area such as Greater Manchester it is important that there is good co-ordination between the provisions made by the local authority further education colleges and those made by public sector higher education and the universities. We need some mechanism for planning the development of courses in all those institutions.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us how the Government envisage introducing a proper planning mechanism so that there is no overlap of courses between further and higher education institutions and no failure to provide courses because further education institutions see them as the work of a higher education institution and vice versa. Therefore, it is important to develop a co-ordinated plan to make sure that good quality further and higher education is provided on a regional basis.
In particular, I want to press the Government on the problem of mixed colleges. We have received many representations, from places such as Salford, Glosscott and Stockport colleges of further education, about the many advanced courses which should be funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and which run side by side with courses which will be financed by the local authority. Such mixed colleges are fundamental to the development of education in Britain. It is attractive to have people on non-advanced courses, such as engineering, working in workshops alongside people in advanced courses. That encourages people to stay on and complete their education.
Despite many requests in Committee, the Government made no clear statement about the way in which they would guarantee funding for at least the group of 10 mixed colleges and the many other colleges of further education


which have some advanced work. It is important to develop the ladder of expectation that can come from such mixed colleges.

Dr. Hampson: I endorse that point entirely, but let me draw attention to the reverse of that—the position in the polytechnics, particularly in Leeds where the polytechnic has many non-advanced level courses. The polytechnics are currently in the process of trying to set their fees for next year and it is fundamental that they should have some information on the funding of the non-advanced section of combined courses. In Committee, we mentioned the Farnley language centre in Leeds, where much of the work is non-degree level but it leads on to degree level. We asked about the funding of such courses within the polytechnics.

Mr. Bennett: That is helpful. The hon. Gentleman might have been reading my notes because the next problem that I intend to deal with is that of mixed colleges where further education work dominates, but where there may be a big proportion of higher education work, and in the next group the opposite applies. Not only do the polytechnics in many cases have non-advanced work going on, but there are many higher education colleges in exactly the same position. The Government have not given us sufficient assurances that the non-advanced work in such colleges will be adequately funded.
Let me deal now with who has responsibility for basic education. I could read out amendment No. 470, but I simply ask the Minister to spend a little time, when he replies, setting out how he sees the development of basic education in Britain. The Government are often keen to trumpet the number of adults who are not literate or numerate as a criticism of the school system, but they are nothing like as enthusiastic about setting out what should be done in further education, and sometimes in higher education, to ensure that adequate courses are available to encourage the development of literacy and numeracy.
The Government, in their White Paper, recognise that there will be a substantial reduction in the number of 18-year-olds who will be available to enter higher education. They rightly point out that we should be making up that shortfall by increasing the participation of working-class youngsters, women and the ethnic minorities, and also by developing access courses for the many adults who missed out the first time round.
There have been some extremely good initiatives from the Inner London education authority and Manchester to develop access courses. Although the Government have paid lip service to such initiatives, they have done little to encourage the development of such courses or to provide the funding to make it possible for people to go on such courses. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us to what extent the Government will provide grants for people on access courses and how he will ensure that such courses continue during the changes in higher education which will take the public sector away from the local authorities. I hope that he will also preview what will be said in the ILEA debate on Monday and tell us how he will guarantee the continuation of the excellent access courses which have been run London-wide by ILEA. I press him to tell us how access courses will be improved and expanded under this legislation over the next few years.
Let me deal now with continuing education for those who do not want to obtain degrees in higher education but

who want to study for their own pleasure at quite high levels. How will the Minister fit in work done by the Workers Educational Association, the extra-mural departments of universities and the adult education carried out by many local authorities? The Bill does not set out how they will be funded and co-ordinated.
Many people outside the House have pressed the Government to place a duty on local authorities to provide further education. There is still no fundamental legislation that places such a duty on local authorities. Many people outside hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do that.
We shall listen carefully to what the Minister says when he replies, but for the Opposition the further education section is very much a lucky dip with not much in the barrel except sawdust. We want a development of further education in Britain which will release the talents of all those who missed out at school, who did well at school or who simply want to study for its own sake.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The amendment gives us an opportunity to stress once again the definitional and institutional problems that face the various categories of post-16 education in England and Wales. It gives us an opportunity especially to stress the need for the Government to recognise clearly the importance of all the different modes of post-16 education.
The major weakness of the Bill, as other hon. Members have pointed out already, is that it does not deal adequately with the needs of the curriculum in further and higher education. In those sectors the Bill has directed itself to institutional issues. It has not considered the interlinking between the various levels of teaching, or between institutions. The Government are obsessed with the notion that the so-called national curriculum in schools will make a qualitative difference to the measured output of those schools.
Significantly, the Government have not given similar attention to the curriculum, in the broadest sense of that word, or to the structure of institutions at 16-plus. In this area the Government are apparently satisfied with the content of education and with the institutional basis. By neglecting this area they are once again allowing the chaos that we described in Committee, and earlier on Report, to continue. Within that chaotic, unplanned and uncoordinated provision, these institutions and the mode of education that have had status traditionally are being allowed to continue at the expense of the rest of the system.
Where are the Government's market principles in secondary education in relation to post-16 education institutions? Where are the principles of the liberating curriculum and the independent control by consumers, which are apparently so important in the secondary education sector, within the sector for adult, advanced or continuing education—however we may describe it?
The simple way in which the Government can tackle this issue, which successive Governments have failed to address—so it is high time it was dealt with—is to have one label for 16-plus education. So long as there is a variety of labels there will be confusion of understanding and of funding at institutional level. That is not to say that within that name there will not be a variety of provision. The argument about post-16 education is that it deals not only with early vocational and non-vocational training but with recurrent training. This can mean anything from an adult student going to an adult literacy class to improve


his or her ability to cope with English, perhaps as a second or third language, in an inner city to—I am not saying that provision extends up or down — someone who is taking an Open University continuing education course. This might be a short course for his or her own educational experience, or a more long-term course to improve his or her career prospects. That illustrates the range of the system, excluding those undertaking part-time higher degrees.
That range of provision within the system needs to be integrated and planned, as well as movement between sectors within that system. In particular, all aspects of that system should be regarded as equally valid. If all consumers are equal as consumers, in the Government's rhetoric, then in this area, of all areas, all consumers of a range of educational products—here I am borrowing the Government's language—should be regarded as equal in the range of provision, funding and especially the status of their courses within the overall system.
That is why those of us who have emerged from that particular educational tradition have always felt aggrieved that adult and continuing education provision in England and Wales—and to a lesser extent in the Scottish system —has been marginalised. The Government are missing an opportunity in the Bill to follow their own ideology. I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is agreeing with me.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I am surprised by the argument.

Dr. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is shocked that I am deploying his arguments.
The Bill was the Government's opportunity to take on the already massive explosion in adult education at all levels, which needs to continue. A major fallacy of the Government's approach in this sector is that they believe, as they do apparently in relation to secondary education, that a national curriculum will somehow directly affect the economic performance of Britain. The rhetoric coming from the Government says that, by changing the curriculum, suddenly an enterprise culture will be created and the performance of the British economy will shoot up. If that sort of rhetoric is valid in relation to secondary education—I shall not enter that debate now—it is valid for the post-16 sector.
The educational opportunities afforded to people directly and immediately affect their position in the job market. That is why I fail to see why the Government have not taken this on board and come to grips with it. In their activities in relation to MSC-funded courses, they have faced the issue, for example, in the curriculum content. I have mentioned TVEI before and other MSC courses. The change in curriculum content has deliberately and successfully put a stop to that lack of direction between education and training. In the rest of the post-16 system, however, the Government have failed to integrate that level of provision. I ask the Government to take away the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and supported by Opposition Members, and to reconsider all this before the Bill is debated in the other place.
I am a bit concerned that the only concession that the Government are prepared to make in the Bill is to the Church of England, as we heard last night. I am all in favour of concessions to the Anglican Church, but we know why it is happening. The Government are in an ideological battle with the Anglican Church and they have to make some concessions to it on religious education.
The Government should equally be prepared to assess the defects of their Bill which may not be linked immediately to their short-term political battles with any of their major adversaries.
They should look particularly at the fact that in drafting the Bill their attention was fixed fully on secondary education, to which the opting-out proposals and the national curriculum rules are directed. Further education has been neglected for a long time in local government and Government policy. The Government have created new free-standing institutions. We shall be debating them later. Between the provision of these new institutions in higher education and the secondary education sector, which seems to be of concern to the Government in this part of the Bill, there is a mess of potage of educational provision. The Government have not addressed themselves to it. In Wales the free-standing institutions will be in a better relationship to the rest of the system than they are in England.
I welcome this "potage" — or caw1 as we say in Welsh. It is right to have a variety of provision, but what is important is that the variety of provision, from access courses to higher education provision, should be treated equally. The way to do that is simply to designate the sector for continuing adult education. It would be part of the central educational experience of everyone at 16-plus. Once the Government have done that they will have made a significant shift in provision. It will not cost them much at first, but that sector will be recognised as equally important with the primary, secondary and so-called higher education sectors. The Government should accept that the 16-plus area of educational experience has validity. They should have the grace to be generous in responding to the amendment of their hon. Friend. They should consider it carefully and show us the grace that they have shown to the Anglican Church.

Mr. Ashdown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). He eloquently made many of the points that I want to make.
The points made by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) show clearly, yet again, why this cannot be referred to as a great reform Bill. Such a Bill would provide the sort of liberties and freedom in the further education system to which they referred, but it does not. Wherever one looks in it one finds what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish called "putting things in boxes." The Bill stops movement across the system from vocational to academic courses and from training to education—yet it is supposed to give liberation. The Bill does not exhibit the reformist zeal that would provide a system of higher education that was freer and gave pupils the ability to go to institutions of their choice, carrying the funding for that with them.
I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that one of the areas in which the Bill fails so spectacularly is the way in which it preserves the artificial divide between education and training. A great reform Bill would bring


together education and training under the same Ministry and abolish what is increasingly becoming an artificial divide, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I remember that, when I took part in the debate on the City, we referred to Chinese walls in firms that prevented people from knowing what was going on on the other side. The Government are building Chinese walls in the higher education sector: between education and training and between some aspects of further education and others. There has been some movement away from that. The movement towards the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is a welcome step that will begin to break down those walls. Why do the Government not take this extra step and build a system that would allow the sort of freedom that they say is their goal elsewhere?
I agree with all the amendments under discussion. The amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is important. Among the things that we will require in an education system that will serve Britain's future needs is a massively expanded continuing and adult education sector. I saw an article the other day that showed this. I ask the House to accept a difficult concept known as "out-datedness". The article's argument was well backed with good reasons.

Mr. Jack Straw: How about obsolescence?

Mr. Ashdown: Not quite.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: If one is aged 40 or more today and has had no further education since leaving school or university at 18, one is in the same quartile of out-datedness as Archimedes and Pythagoras, so fast has the world moved since we were at school. The same will be even more true of the future. The article went on to say that if one was 45 and had received no further training or education since school or university, no less than seven eighths of the skills one had learnt are now out of date and inapplicable to the job one is in.
What we desperately need for Britain's future is an adequate system of retraining and upskilling — a word that I know that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) does not like. It is not very elegant, but it covers the point well. All this will require a massive input into continuing education. Britain's future needs must place far more emphasis on adult retraining and continuing education than the Bill gives them. Here again, it falls short of the reforms that are necessary in the education system.
I strongly support the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West; and the Opposition amendments, giving a role to the LEA and some status and publicity for youth provision, are also important. I hope they will all be considered.
We have here a tremendous opportunity. Pupils in post-16, post-18 and adult education should be given an entitlement that they can take with them to the institutions of their choice. I should have thought that that was entirely in keeping with the Government's philosophy, but there is neither echo nor substance of it in the Bill. There is a case for tying the YTS into a system of qualifications that would then be applicable in the education system—both further and higher, if necessary. That would be a system built in part on national qualifications or credits

that might be assembled. People might start off in vocational training and come out as late developers through the academic system of higher education. That is the sort of system that we want, but there is no evidence of it in the Bill.
Where the Bill has anything to say about funding, it points in the opposite direction. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is to answer the debate. He it was who throughout the Committee chided us for seeking to support what he referred to continuously as the nanny state. Now he is operating in the guise of the nanny state.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Under the great nanny in Downing street.

Mr. Ashdown: Indeed. She presides over us all.
I invite the Minister to look at page 114 of the Bill and cast his mind back to 18 February 1988 when we debated why the Government had decided that further education colleges should be funded purely on the basis of a plan by the LEA which would determine the number and type of students at each further education college. That is quite unlike the funding basis for schools, which is a per capita arrangement. Confining further education colleges within such a nanny-operated straitjacket is wrong. The local education authority will play the nanny and decide how many students there will be; the colleges cannot then make more effective financial provision in order to take more students for the same cost. In short, they cannot do any of the things that the Government supposedly want done in every other part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, like me, was outraged by this clause. I draw the Minister's attention to the debate in Committee on 18 February, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), in answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, said:
I shall undertake to look at those points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and consider what changes we may make."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 18 February 1988; c. 1565.]
I have not heard the result of that consideration, and I doubt whether the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has. Was that a promise idly given, not to be fulfilled, or has this matter been considered and will the Minister answer it when he replies? The Bill has been changed not one whit. The Government, who pretend to give us freedom, have confined the further education colleges in a straitjacket of the LEA's making. They are preventing the freedom and operation of market forces that would be beneficial.
The Bill fails consistently because of the damage that it will do to education and because of the opportunities that are missed in it. The chance has been missed to create a genuine system of education and training that would allow cross-over, give flexibility and allow funding on the basis of numbers of students who choose to go to those colleges. Students should be free to go to them and carry their funding with them when they do. None of that appears in the Bill. That is why it is important to vote for the amendments, which go some small way towards improving the Bill to bring that about.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: We are dealing with one aspect of education which is lacking in


the Bill. It demonstrates that the Government see education in narrow terms. It is a tragedy that they have failed to address one of the greatest difficulties in the education system. Government Back Benchers talk almost as much as we do about the need for much better educated and trained people. Yet the Government have failed to address that need during their term of office and they have allowed the Manpower Services Commission to pull the rug completely from under the Department of Education and Science.
The DES has almost abdicated responsibility for work for those over 16. The Government still think that the only proper activity for the 16-plus age group is in sixth forms. If we restrict our vision of what is good education to A-level studies, we have missed the most incredible opportunity, but we are also selling exceptionally short the young people, the skills and the potential of the nation.
Several of my hon. Friends have talked about the Government seeing further education as being in boxes because they regard it separately from the main stream of education. They see it as being separated from higher education. The Minister and I have talked on several occasions about the link between further and higher education and between continuing and higher education. The lack of a close link means greater inequality in access to higher education than in any other area of life. I shall not repeat the figures because I am sure the Minister is sick to death of my quoting them. But we must address that problem, and we cannot do it just at higher education level. We have to deal with it throughout the education system. I have argued strongly for access courses, but we must encourage and enable many more young people to be involved in meaningful education after the age of 16. Education should mean something to them, to their lives and to their communities.
The Bill fails to address the regional differences in need and experience over the past 20 years. In the north-east, and some other areas, deindustrialisation has decimated past training and the Government have tried to lay on top of that what is almost artificial training through YTS. I am not decrying much of the experience that many young people have gained from YTS, but it does not supplant the training experience that used to be available. The training of the past would not meet the needs of British industry or manufacturing today. Training which is separated from education will never match the needs of the 1990s. Therefore, we plead with the Government to expand their understanding of what further education means.
The Government should examine the funding for students and for potential students. They should also consider differential funding for part-time and full-time work. Again, I argued strongly in Committee that much could be done through part-time work and that many opportunities are being missed because there is an enormous disincentive for people to go into part-time education, particularly if they are in receipt of benefit. We want the unemployed to be drawn back into education. My experience of working with mature women who want to return to education is that when they get over the hurdles and become students they are the most encouraging students to teach because of their commitment, dedication and determination to get on. We should not put all those hurdles in their way.
I am arguing for more planning and co-ordination across the boundaries between school and further education, between voluntary classes in tenants' associations, the Workers Educational Association, and so on, and the maintained sector and between further and higher education. We have good experience where that has happened. There are some remarkable examples of good practice, despite the enormous hurdles. We need from the Government a signal that they understand the nature of the hurdles and that they are determined to find ways round them.
That demands a close examination of funding for courses and students. The prevarication of the Government has been appalling. Students can only be confident about continuing education if they have substantial financial backing. The Government must consider differential funding for part-time and full-time education. They must also plan.
Because of the attack on their services, local authorities have not got the confidence to begin to plan. In post-16 education we need planning not just within but across authorities. We need much more support for regional planning of further education for the 16-plus age group. I do not differentiate between education and training, but regional planning is essential if we are serious about enabling young people to continue their education.
The only experience young people have had of training and education in many regions has frequently been negative. In areas like mine there is a very low stay-on rate and historically there are few women in the work force. That is changing, and it has to change. The level of skill and the qualifications for measuring skill are appallingly low. In such areas we need to raise skill levels and provide opportunities to develop skills.
There is so much that the Government have missed. We have been arguing this week that all parts of the Bill should be linked. The move to tertiary education has been crucial in encouraging young people who saw education as having nothing to offer them to stay in education. That has been very important, particularly in my area. Ministers may remember that there was great resistance from schools with sixth forms to the setting up of Consett tertiary college.
On Saturday I spoke to a teacher who is now a lecturer at that tertiary college. She was formerly a teacher in one of the sixth form colleges. She told me that she opposed the change root and branch and supported the argument against the college. She told me that she feared that they would have gone for opt-out if it was available then. She said, "I now know that I was absolutely and totally wrong. My experience of teaching at the college has been exciting and interesting." She told me that the range of students that she is involved with is much wider and that the opportunities available to her as a teacher have meant that her teaching has improved beyond all bounds. She said that she was worried that other areas might oppose such an idea in the way that she did at first. If that were the case, opportunities for young people would diminish.
We have recounted the arguments before. I am worried that the Government have not responded to those arguments and they have not recognised the sincerity with which they have been made. We want the best opportunities for the widest possible number of young people and adults. The Government must provide a structure that will enable that to develop. At the moment the Government are centralising, and that means that the


necessary adaptations and responses will not be made at local and regional levels. That would be tragic. We want the Government to reconsider and produce the right structure in the post-16 sector.

Mr. Rowe: I am very cautious about speaking in an assembly that has already had such cogent things to say about being out of date.

Mr. Win Griffiths: That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before.

Mr. Rowe: No, and I take courage to speak from the knowledge that if I am out of date, so are many other hon. Members.
As I was not a member of the Committee, I am somewhat puzzled by the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me when he replies. I understood that the schemes that local education authorities are required to create will be annual schemes in the sense that they can he altered every year to take account of changing local circumstances. In that respect, they do not seem to be anything like as restrictive as Opposition Members have suggested.
As a governor of one of the largest further education colleges in Kent, I believe that there are wide opportunities — which are extended considerably by the Bill — for colleges to find support from local business or in other ways almost where they will. The college to which I have referred established its own company last year and is looking forward to considerable freedom of movement and activity. We hope to be able to perform in a far more entrepreneurial way than ever before. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that from happening.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question that was put to me by a member of staff at an FE college. According to the member of staff's reading of the Bill, and to my reading of it, staff members are excluded from being part of the governing body. If that is the case, they are the only section of teaching staff throughout the education system who appear to be debarred from sitting on the governing body. I hope that we have misunderstood that, although clause 127 seems to give that impression. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me about that or make changes if I am correct. I cannot see any reason why members of the teaching staff should not be allowed to sit on the governing body if they are appropriate in other ways.
My hon. Friends are in difficulty with the Bill because most of the major changes that we would like to see in the way in which further education is delivered, particularly to adults, throughout their lifetime, depend on funding changes which I do not believe are part of the Department of Education and Science's responsibility. I have already put the proposition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the method of funding that he introduced in his training White Paper for the longterm unemployed should he adopted more freely for everyone who has been unemployed for, say, more than three months.
5.45 pm
It should be possible to change the social security regulations so that the unemployed who wish to take approved training to acquire the kinds of skills that are in short supply in this country are allowed to continue to draw unemployment benefit. I realise that that is not a

point to which my hon. Friend the Minister can respond. However, I believe that that is probably one of the most important elements in freeing the further education system so that it can serve those who perhaps need it most, namely, the unemployed.

Mr. Jackson: This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds-West (Dr. Hampson) on the lead that he has taken in promoting it. The debate is a tribute to his pertinacity and, as he pointed out, a tribute to the flaccidity of the official Opposition.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Where is the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)?

Mr. Jackson: Unhappily, my hon. Friend is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he is pursuing his pertinacity pertinaciously elsewhere.
In his absence, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concessions that he has obtained from the Government. I refer to Government amendments Nos. 233 and 234, which give effect to the commitments that we made in Committee. That answers a point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who referred to the points covered by those amendments.
On behalf of the Government I want to state that we agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West and all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about the importance of continuing education. However, the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend are not necessary to achieve his objective. He said that his objective was to legitimise continuing education. The fact is that continuing education is already legitimate and widespread in our system, and that is a very desirable fact.
That point is outlined in clause 99, which will add a new section 41 to the Education Act 1944. New section 41(2) says that vocational education or training includes
continuing education or training for persons already … engaged in a vocation as well as education or training for entry into any employment or vocation).
That is in the Bill; it is recognised and it is legitimised. That is what my hon. Friend was seeking.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to that passage, because he made the extraordinary statement that there was no provision for that in the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I said that there was no duty.

Mr. Jackson: There is a duty on local authorities to provide further education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West also asked for local schemes to be created. Clause 116 provides for local authorities to draw up schemes for further education. Of course, there is guidance to come, and that will include reference to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made his point about local schemes well in his brier intervention. I notice that he is wearing the tie of a well-known further education college somewhere near Slough. I can offer him the reassurance that he seeks about teachers as members of governing bodies of further education colleges. Clause 99 already requires local education authorities to have regard to relevant further and higher education provision in their areas. I think that that answers my hon. Friend's point about the importance


of continuing education in the context of higher education. The amendments that he has put down are not necessary to meet the points that he seeks to promote.
A more fundamental point is that we should seek to avoid over-specification in the Bill. There is something of a contradiction, and I make no apology for reiterating a point that I have made many times before. Hon. Members on both sides of the House make two points about the Bill quite regularly, frequently in the same paragraph, if not in the same breath. On the one hand they say that there is too much centralisation, and on the other they say that we should centralise more.
Clause 99 lays a general duty on local authorities to promote further education, and that includes, among other matters, adult education. We feel that it is a mistake to single out particular categories of further education for special mention in the statute. There are varying needs in different areas, and we should not intervene too much and impose too many directions, instructions and specifications on how local authorities fulfil their duty to deliver further education.

Dr. Hampson: Let me make two points. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a point in being consistent? If he is really going to make a stand about not putting too much in, why has he put in, in brackets, the "aside" definition on page 96, which includes the words "continuing education"? I see no logic in putting that in if it is not included elsewhere.
Does my hon. Friend accept that law can be declaratory, that it can influence attitudes in a climate, and that we should now be trying to signal to the world that continuing education is at the heart of the higher education system as it will develop at the turn of the century? Schedule 4, which amplifies clause 99, gives a list from (a) to (h), but does not mention continuing education. What is wrong with putting the words in to send a signal?

Mr. Jackson: There is a case for listing a number of matters in the legislation, but we believe that it is necessary to keep the specification to a minimum, and that is the basis on which we are proceeding. Local education authorities have a duty to pay regard to the need for continuing education in their areas. That need varies from area to area, and we must leave it to their discretion.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Jackson: We are timed, and I have a number of points to make to answer the debate.
The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) returned to the general theme discussed on Tuesday, that of 16 to 18 provision. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy was not able to be present on that occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The congratulations of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment have been noted, and I shall pass them on. I join him in congratulating local authorities on their initiatives to promote access. We have great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty

to promote further education. We do not consider it desirable to undermine them in that duty by intervening in the way that the amendments urge us to do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jackson: We are up against the guillotine. I must try to answer the points that have been made.
Running through many of the contributions from Opposition Members was a call for planning mechanisms. The Government agree strongly about the importance of strategic planning by local education authorities in further education. I emphasise the word "strategic". Too often, "planning" can be rather an abstract term that distracts people from doing. In that context, I note with interest the decisions reported in today's newspapers from Hereford and Worcester in respect of its further education provision, which will give further education lecturers the opportunity to deliver more of such education to those who need it.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made an interesting intervention, in which he questioned the Government's liberatory radicalism and urged us to be more liberatory and more radical. Let me draw his attention to the liberatory potential of financial delegation of further education colleges. Meanwhile, in the exercise of new thinking on the Opposition Benches—and the Opposition certainly need it — I noticed the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the idea of vouchers. That is a most interesting and impressive development, which leads to a new line of criticism that we have not heard before: that the Bill does not go far enough. That is a rather refreshing line of criticism, coming from the hon. Gentleman.
We believe that there is a need for strategic planning in further education. We set that out in the consultation paper that was published in August, and widely welcomed. We pointed out that further education numbers are very difficult to predict. They fluctuate. That is one reason why it is necessary to avoid the rigidity of over-specified planning, but some of the Opposition's suggestions lead us in that direction.
The relationship between further and higher education has been touched on. The new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will have to work closely with the local education authorities, and we consider that to be very important. A strong mutual interest will have to be recognised. The local education authorities will have an interest in the higher education that will be delivered in their further education colleges, and the PCFC will have an interest in the provision of further educaton in higher education institutions. This will enable them to work together, and they will have every inducement to do so, particularly at regional level, where they will be able to develop structures.
The subject of access courses is very important. I agree strongly with what has been said by a number of hon. Members — notably the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the sincerity of whose views we very much appreciate. We welcome the increasing participation in higher education by more and more of the population, but, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, a problem will emerge in the mid-1990s as the 18-year-old age group diminishes.
The Government are addressing the issue of access in that context. We are in discussion with the Committee of


Vice-Chancellors and Principals and with the Council for National Academic Awards about the recognition of access courses. We have commissioned a study by the development of adult and continuing education unit, which is funded by the Department, and we shall be pursuing the matter. Although access is improving all the time, there is more to do. In the meantime, nothing in the Bill will impede the development of access. It is one of the issues that the new PCFC will need to address at national level, and I am sure that it will wish to consider the hon. Lady's point about the funding of part-time education, as compared with that of full-time education.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy expressed surprise that the Government were not following their ideology. I think that he has misunderstood our ideology. He believes that it is one of centralisation, and he tells us that he wants more centralisation in further education. Our ideology, however, is one of the devolution of power. That is why we believe that local education authorities have a continuing duty to provide further education. In contrast to the hon. Gentleman, who describes the position as a "mess of potage", we believe that the local authorities are doing a good job and that they should continue to do it. We do not believe that their elbows should be jogged as they do that work.

Mr. Straw: We listened carefully to the Minister, which is more than can be said of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who was not present for the Minister's opening remarks and who spent a large part of the rest of the time chattering to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — who came in to be entertained by the debate.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science speaks with a forked tongue. Time and again in the debate we have been told to accept the good faith of Ministers and not to write undertakings into legislation. Even if we accept the Minister's good faith—which goes without question in respect of this Minister—he will not be a Minister for ever. Moreover, what he says cannot be enforced in the courts. If we are to make a reality of continuing education, it is crucial that the provision is written into the Bill. Local authorities would welcome that, because they know that from it would flow an undertaking from the Government to help to fund the education that local authorities have a duty to provide, just as the Government have to help to fund five to 16 education. For those reasons—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 305.

Division No. 230]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bell, Stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Paddy
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Tony





Boyes, Roland
Janner, Greville


Bradley, Keith
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Buckley, George J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Caborn, Richard
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Livsey, Richard


Canavan, Dennis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAlliort, John


Cartwright, John
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McTaggart, Bob


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Don
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Flynn, Paul
Parry, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prescott, John


Galbraith, Sam
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Grocott, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheerman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Clare


Henderson, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hood, Jimmy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Soley, Clive


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Illsley, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wall, Pat
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Warden, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Adam Ingram.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry


Allason, Rupert
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Farr, Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)





Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Malins, Humfrey
Stokes, John


Mans, Keith
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maples, John
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil


Mellor, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Hal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moore, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann






Wilkinson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilshire, David



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Woodcock, Mike
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that in the last debate, in answer to a series of questions put in the debate and in Committee by myself and by Conservative Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will defer his point of order until I have put the Question, as I am required to do by the order of the House.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 109.

Amendments made: No. 254, in page 96, line 3, leave out 'that is to say' and insert—
'(1A) Subject to subsection (1B) below, in this Act "further education" means'.

No. 255, in page 96, line 9, at end insert—
'(1B) Full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils over compulsory school age shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as further education if it is or is to be provided by an institution which does not provide part-time senior education or post-school age education to a significant extent.
(1C) In this Act—

(a) "part-time senior education" means part-time education or training for senior pupils over compulsory school age; and
(b) "post-school age education" means full-time or part-time education or training for persons of or over nineteen years of age.'

No. 256, in page 96, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 11 and insert
'References above in this section to education and training or (as the case may be) to education or training include'.

No. 257, in page 97, leave out lines 32 to 34.

No. 258, in page 97, line 34, at end insert—
'(6A) In section 67 of that Act (determination of disputes and questions), at the end there shall be added the following subsection—
(4A) If in the case of any institution a question arises as to whether any current or proposed provision of part-time senior education or post-school age education by that institution amounts or would amount to the provision of such education to a significant extent, that question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.".'

No. 259, in page 97, line 39, leave out from 'In' to end of line 45 and insert
'section 114 of the 1944 Act (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after the definition of "further education" there shall be inserted the following defini-tion—
Higher education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 99(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988;";and
(ii) after the definition of "parent" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
Part-time senior education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 41 of this Act;
Post-school age education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 41 of this Act;";and
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—'.

No. 260, in page 97, line 50, at end insert—
'(1B) For the purposes of this Act, an institution which provides part-time senior education or post-school age education shall be regarded as providing such education to a

significant extent if the provision of such education by the institution is not merely incidental to the provision of education which is not part-time senior education or post-school age education.
(1C) For the purpose of determining whether an institution is a school as defined by subsection (1) of this section, the provision by the institution of part-time senior education or post-school age education shall be disregarded if the institution does not provide such education to a significant extent.".'.—[Mr. Jackson.]

Schedule 5

THE HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATIONS

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 173, line 28, leave out 'had'.

No. 139, in page 174, line 13, leave out from 'board' to end of line 14. — [Mr. Jackson.]

Clause 104

ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 101, line 14, leave out 'if any'.

No. 121, in page 101, line 16, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 122, in page 101, line 18, leave out 'any such' and insert 'the'.

No. 123, in page 101, line 22, leave out '(if any)'.—[Mr. Jackson.]

Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for seeking to raise a point of order at an inappropriate moment, but the Minister, in reply to the question posed by myself and Conservative Members about a serious matter relating to the funding of further education institutions, said that the Government had answered the question with amendments Nos. 123 and 124. The Minister may have rnisunderstood the nature of his own amendments as they did not address the question about which a promise was made. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may agree that it might be appropriate for the Minister to give an undertaking that, if it is impossible for the correct answer to he given now, it should be given later in the form of a letter.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I had misunderstood his reference. In fact, the amendments do not cover his point. The point was misunderstood and its interpretation in the Bill was a misunderstanding. It is true that the hon. Gentleman is owed a letter which should be circulated to every hon. Member on the Committee. I shall ensure that that letter is sent, and I apologise for the fact that it was not sent sooner.

Clause 110

UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 423, in page 105, line 32, at end insert—
(1A) The Council shall establish a sub-committee on matters relating to Wales.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 424, in page 105, line 34, at end insert
'and at least five who shall serve on the Welsh sub-committee and be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales.'

No. 425, in page 105, line 35, after 'members', insert ',
of whom at least two shall be members of the Welsh sub-committee,'.

No. 273, in page 106, line 23, at end insert—
'(10) This section shall not apply to Wales.'.

No. 426, in clause 111, page 106, line 25, at end insert—
(1A) The Council shall establish a sub-committee on matters relating to Wales.'.

No. 427, in clause 111, page 106, line 27, at end insert—
'and at least five who shall serve on the Welsh sub-committee and be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales.'.

No. 428, in clause 111, page 106, line 28, after 'members', insert—
', of whom at least two shall be members of the Welsh sub-committee,'.

No. 274, in clause 111, page 107, line 38, at end insert—
'(10) This section shall not apply to Wales.'.

No. 275, in clause 178, page 156, line 18, leave out first 'and' and insert—

'108, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 and 134.'.

Mr. Griffiths: I have the privilege of speaking from the Opposition Front Bench because of the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I pay tribute to the work of the University of Wales and its constituent colleges, to the Polytechnic of Wales and to all the local authorities involved in providing further and higher education in Wales for the way in which they have coped over the years with the cuts in Government funding.
During the debate in Committee on the establishment of a Universities Funding Council, the Minister of State for Wales reiterated an undertaking already given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there would be a Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. He further assured us that there would be close consultation between the Welsh advisory body and the Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. However, no Government amendments have been tabled to activate that promise.
Amendments Nos. 423, 424 and 425 were tabled to overcome that omission. Although it is good to have the Government's promise to establish the Welsh subcommittee, the best assurance by far would be for it to be written into the Bill so that any change of mind would require parliamentary assent rather than a departmental nod and wink in the shadows of Elizabeth house, or Gwydyr house.
We have only to look at the sorry saga of chronic and serious underfunding of the University of Wales in the 1980s to realise the urgent need for a Welsh subcommittee. In an exercise undertaken last year to examine the funding of the University of Wales on a real value basis for the period between 1985 and 1990, using the University Grants Committee's calculations on the inflation of university costs, the picture from 1985 to 1990 is dripping with the blood of cuts for all colleges of the University of Wales.
The calculation for the five years show that Aberystwyth suffers a 13·6 per cent. cut, in Bangor it is 18·5 per cent., in Cardiff, 13·5 per cent., in Swansea, 14·5 per cent., in UWIST, 6·5 per cent., in the University of

Wales College of Medicine, 2·8 per cent., in St. David's Lampeter, 7·3 per cent. and in the university registry, 7·1 per cent. Overall, the real cut in the funding of the University of Wales was calculated at 12·3 per cent. The comparative cost for England was shown to be 6·7 per cent., and for Scotland, which fared only a little better than Wales, 11·2 per cent. The cuts in university budgets have bitten deep everywhere, but nowhere is the wound more gaping than in the Celtic fringe.
Unfortunately, those calculations do not tell the whole story because the figures used for 1989–90 assume an increase of 4·5 per cent. over the funding for the previous year. The current estimate provided by the Universities Grants Committee is a cash increase of 1·7 per cent. in the recurrent grant for Wales compared with 2·9 per cent. for Great Britain. That is well below the inflation of university costs. Thus, the calculation made last year that some 400 academic and non-academic jobs would be lost in the University of Wales may have to be revised upwards.
The University of Wales is having to cope with massive cuts administered by the University Grants Committee with what seems to be little regard for the vital role it plays in Welsh education, and, in particular, for the provision of higher education opportunities through the medium of Welsh. It also appears that little account is taken of the needs of a university that has a federal structure and a campus covering thousands of square miles. That federal structure grew out of the unique involvement of all classes in Welsh society in the establishment and growth of university education in Wales.
It would be a travesty if the Government were not prepared to honour their promise to establish a subcommittee for Wales of the Universities Funding Council by supporting these amendments. They ensure that five members of the UFC would be appointed, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, and that at least two of whom would have experience of higher education in Wales. It would provide an opportunity to undo the damage that was inflicted on the colleges of the University of Wales in the 1980s, when the cuts bit more deeply into the Welsh sector than they bit into the English and Scottish sectors, although, heaven knows, they have been treated badly enough.
The Government now have an opportunity to back their promises with a legal commitment. If they really care for Wales, they should grasp the opportunity that we have provided for them.
Amendments Nos. 426, 427 and 428, which relate to the establishment of a Welsh sub-committee of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, are of a different order from those which relate to the UFC. We want to take this opportunity to clarify the position of further and higher education in Wales and in England. The Bill that covers English polytechnics and eligible colleges establishes legally and financially independent institutions. Apart from stating that the Polytechnic of Wales and eligible colleges—six in all—;would be excluded from the PCFC, but with an option to join later, perhaps at the diktat of the Secretary of State for Wales, nothing else was said until new clause 44 arrived while the Bill was being considered in Committee. That is now contained in the Bill as clause 179.
This afterthought, which allows the Polytechnic of Wales and the eligible colleges in Wales to be incorporated as companies limited by guarantee but with no share capital under the Companies Act 1985, means that they


remain under the aegis of the local education authorities and hence, ultimately, the Welsh Office. It came, however, only after a great deal of disquiet had been expressed by further and higher education practitioners in Wales. I quote from the Welsh Office's consultative paper on "Corporate Status for Further and Higher Education Institutions", published on 30 November 1987. Part D, "Welsh Office Views", states:
There is a risk of the Welsh higher education sector being seen as not as good or not as advanced as that in England if the recommendation of the 'Good Management and Practice' Report in favour of corporate status is ignored.
The position, however, is that while the Welsh Office is taking on board the recommendations of the Government and local authority associations joint efficiency study report "Managing Colleges Efficiently" and the National Advisory Body's good management and practice report "Management For a Purpose", the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not. Instead, the recommendations of the Lord Joseph-inspired reports are being kicked out of the window by the present Secretary of State in favour of freebooting higher education corporations.
Why is there this difference of approach? The Minister of State, Welsh Office boasted in Committee that we in Wales had the best of all worlds, of which the bottom line is inclusion in the PCFC, if the proposed Companies Act 1985 and section 100 of the Education Act 1944 arrangements for Wales do not work out.
In Committee I asked the Minister what the practical implications of the Welsh arrangements would be. I asked whether an English polytechnic college would be able to set up an annex in Wales, so to speak, and seek students for courses while the Polytechnic of Wales and Welsh incorporated colleges would be unable to do the same in England. If that is the case, it is plainly unacceptable. The Minister, however, forgot to answer. It was at the end of the day's proceedings. I believe that the House and all those involved in the further and higher education sector in Wales should have a clear answer to that question.
The impression given by the evolution of the Bill's clauses relating to further and higher education in Wales is that some sort of power struggle was going on between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales over the place of Welsh colleges in the Bill, which the Secretary of State for Education and Science once again lost—not by a knockout this time but on points, as the option remains in the Bill for the Secretary of State for Wales to take the Welsh colleges into the PCFC. The Welsh colleges, therefore, had the better option of following the recommendations of the "Good Management and Practice" report. Hence, the Secretary of State for Wales, having won the battle for keeping the colleges, had to produce a clause that was consonant with the "Good Management and Practice" report.
In placing amendments Nos. 426, 427 and 428 before the House, we seek clarification of the Welsh Office's view of the working of the two systems side by side and of whether, in its judgment, the risk of the Welsh higher education sector being considered to be not as good or not as advanced as that in England still holds true. Answers, please.

Mr. Brynmor John: I shall refer only to amendment No. 426. The Polytechnic of Wales is in my constituency. In many ways it is the epitome of what the

Government want. It is technologically based. It has a high reputation in science and technology and it has close links with local business. It is progressive in its efforts to cooperate with local industry. However, it has lost out because of neglect by the Welsh Office. The unit of resource for each student in the Polytechnic of Wales is some hundreds of pounds less than even the lowest of the English polytechnics. Capital investment must be high in science-based polytechnics. Therefore, the Polytechnic of Wales is losing out very heavily.
The Minister may say that the Welsh Office is looking after it and that it is under democratic control because the county council and the further and higher education authorities are looking after it. That is good in theory, but the reality is that the Polytechnic of Wales has traditionally been badly served and badly treated. Its finances are suffering because of the way the Government are running them. If the setting up of a sub-committee of the PCFC for Wales is the way in which equity can be assured, so be it. If retention of the present system would bring about equity, so be it. However, I insist that the Polytechnic of Wales should not be as unfairly treated in the future as it has been in the past. It is an unwanted and an unwarranted slur on a very fine institution and it is holding back its development.

Dr. Thomas: My favourite amendment to the Bill reads:
This section shall not apply to Wales.
The purpose of the amendment is to delete the relevant provision for the Universities Funding Council. We should consider the allocation system for Wales as one system. I have argued this before in another context. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I ask him to say whether he agrees to or dissents from the proposal that, whatever legal arrangements may be made, he will abide by them. There is the parliamentary fiction that the Government may accept Opposition amendments, hut we know that the Government yield only to the Church of England. They will not yield to our arguments tonight. The Bill will be pushed through in its present form. The Government did not accept the amendment for Scotland, so they are unlikely to accept the amendment for Wales.
6.30 pm
How will the system that the Minister is establishing function? What will be the relationship between the subcommittee of the Universities Funding Council, the existing, or remaining, Welsh Advisory Body and the Welsh Office? How will the arrangements operate in practice? The LEAs, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, and the Welsh Language Educational Development Committee of the WJEC all have an interest in these matters. How does the Minister envisage the system operating on the ground?
Once the Bill has been forced through, there will be an opportunity for joint planning of the whole of higher education in Wales. Presumably, the Minister of State will ensure that some of the good men and perhaps two or three good women, although that is increasingly unlikely given the nominations put forward by the Welsh Office, nominated to the Universities Funding Council subcommittee for Wales will happen to be the same good men and women as might be sitting on the WAB, or what remains of the WAB. Those good men and women and true may tend also to be members of the Welsh Joint Education Committee and at least one of them might also find himself on the Welsh Language Educational


Development Committee. Already there is the potential for a great "quangocracy". Wales is run by a great quangocracy with each of its members responsible to the Minister of State, or his Secretary of State, whom he is educating very well in Welsh life and culture.
The Minister of State is the most intelligent education Minister so far to be seen at the Welsh Office. While that may not be difficult, and while some of my hon. Friends may not like it, it happens to be a fair description — [Interruption.] No, at the Welsh Office. He is a well-known literary figure in his own right. He is a writer of sonnets in his spare time. Because of his great expertise and experience in education and cultural matters, he is in a unique position to manage the Welsh education system as a coherent whole. Therefore, he should respond positively and say, "Yes. We intend to manage the system properly rather than having bits of it run by the UGC and bits by the WAB, so that we do not have the cross-binary disagreements that we recently had on the question of the provision of teacher training."
I understand that the provision of teacher training figures is now the responsibility of the Welsh Office and that the Welsh Office tells the chair of the UGC what the figures are. I hope that we can reach that position in all the other sectors of higher education in Wales and that we have effective cross-binary planning. It will be the first time in the history of British education that we will have had effective cross-binary planning, and in the Minister of State we have the pioneer who can lead the field.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish briefly to underline the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) in his maiden speech from the Front Bench.
We know that the favourite pastime of the Secretary of State for Wales is writing and issuing press releases. We have now reached a new low; we are now almost legislating by press release. All that we had to go on to begin with on this matter was a press release of 1 December 1987 containing a three-paragraph announcement by the Secretary of State that it had been agreed to establish a Welsh committee. That is our only basis for considering the role, function and powers of the committee—three paragraphs in a press release, presumably elaborated in Committee. We are entitled to ask, therefore, what will be the powers of the Welsh committee. What function will it play in financing Welsh universities? Why is it not written into the Bill? What is wrong with giving it statutory powers? A non-statutory committee can be abolished by administrative fiat and the House would have no way of preventing that, so we have every right to demand that the establishment of the Welsh committee should be written into the Bill.
We want to establish the role that the committee could have played in the various crises that have struck our universities and colleges in the past few years. Without going into the complicated arguments about University College Cardiff and its cash crisis, I remind the House that in the middle of that crisis it was sent a peremptory unilateral letter—not by the UGC, not by the Secretary of State for Wales, not by the permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, but by Sir David Hancock, the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science acting in his role as the principal accounting officer. We

want to know whether that behaviour could be repeated once the new Welsh committee has been established. Will it be possible for an English permanent secretary from an English Department once again to intervene directly in the finances of a constituent college of the University of Wales?

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science did went much further than that. He threatened to stop the recurrent grant, which would have closed the college down altogether.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the seriousness of such intervention. Will we now be able to channel our arguments through a properly representative committee of the new Universities Funding Council?
As my hon. Friends will recall, there is another example of intervention—the UGC's peremptory statement that University College Cardiff might have to sell the Sherman theatre. That happened in the middle of last year. Would that have been possible had a Welsh committee already existed? Will the establishment of a Welsh committee allow it to be the proper channel to handle such issues so that we do not have peremptory demands from bodies that do not understand and are not sensitive to Welsh university life? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, the cuts in research grants, the problems of the Welsh universities and the representations that we have had to make to change the formula that the UGC has established for funding the Welsh universities all lead us to believe that we need a powerful Welsh committee; and the only way to establish a powerful committee is to give it statutory powers under the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to have the opportunity to reinforce the points made by Opposition Members. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) asking for a fully comprehensive transbinary approach to all post-16 education in Wales. If it was to be fully comprehensive, I suppose that it would have to include Jesus college, Oxford, too.
Let me reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said. In comparing the cuts that the University of Wales has experienced with those faced by the universities of England and Scotland, he clearly showed that something has gone wrong. It is not easy to put one's finger on it. However, given that the real resource cuts to the University of Wales have been almost double those in England and slightly higher than those in Scotland, one can tell that we are not talking about Celtic paranoia. There is a great difference between paranoia and persecution. We are talking about a breakdown in the application of the norms as between the universities of England and those of Wales and Scotland.
What has been going wrong? Opposition Members think that it is simply the failure of the University Grants Committee to realise that one cannot always apply English norms to Welsh institutions. They are different, and, in particular, they are different in periods of rationalisation. The University of Wales was set up on the principle of disbursing its assets throughout the different areas of Wales because of the nature of Welsh geography and nonexistent communications. During a period of rationalisation, when the University Grants Committee is


going for a "big is beautiful" and rationalised set-up, any university that is based on a disbursement principle will suffer more than any other.
What is the answer? Surely the answer must be a powerful body in Wales with some teeth that is able to say to the UGC, "If you apply that norm, it will be a disaster for the University of Wales." After all, the University of Wales is unable to make up by private funding what it loses from public sector funding. A cut for the University of Wales of 12 per cent. cannot be made up by approaching millionaires such as the Sainsburys, David Robinson of Radio Rentals, and so on. Lowland regions of England can find millionaires who can provide the arts centres, theatres, institutions, and so on that make a university a fully comprehensive set-up. That cannot be done in Wales simply because the taxation revenue is not there and millionaires do not live in Wales.
I implore the Government to set up a body that is able to explain to the Universities Funding Council, when it is set up, that Wales is different, that it needs different treatment and that the importance of the University of Wales to Wales is as great as it could be in any part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). He is a Brecon boy and he has done extremely well this evening.
I should like to address the problems facing the University of Wales. There are special problems, in that it is a federal university. Stuart Rendel, who was once the hon. Member for Montgomery, and the Davies's of Llandinam, who were Liberal party members, were very much to the fore, and together with the people of Wales they gave their pennies for the establishment of the university. I believe that in recent times we have seen a dismembering of those ideals by the UGC.
The position of the University of Wales is significant in its federal structure. One of the problems is that it has not always been ruled in a federal way. If it had, it might have been a little stronger in resisting some of the aggressive and predatory attacks of the UGC. Latterly, the UGC has tended to be an arm of the Government in a rather hard way, enforcing Government ideas and making cut-backs in the university sector. If we cannot have a funding council for Wales, at the very least we must have a UFC sub-committee as suggested in amendment No. 423.
One of the characteristics of Welsh universities must surely be to reflect the community in Wales. That community is undoubtedly changing. We have seen, regrettably, the abolition of the chemistry department at Aberystwyth and the movement of the geography and geology departments between Swansea and Cardiff. We now wish to see science becoming more important in the universities, especially in relation to the new industries that are coming to Wales. Many electronics industries are coming to Wales, and there is also new investment from Japanese industries. Biotechnology is becoming increasingly important. These are all things that should be developed in the universities at a much higher rate than they are now. Matters such as that should be dealt with by the WEWH sub-committee of the UFC, which is proposed in the amendment. That committee could promote a linkup with firms in Wales in order to produce a more dynamic relationship, particularly in research, which has sometimes been lacking in the University of Wales. However, some

efforts are being made now, with science parks being established in Aberystwyth and in other areas to try to catch up on lost ground.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the industries of Wales will fund the university when they cannot even fund proper apprentice schemes?

Mr. Livsey: I am not saying that industries should fund the university. I am merely saying that there should be stronger links between the university and the industries in Wales so that there is a spin-off between the two. That does not mean that we should cop-out of state funding of the universities or of our tradition of teaching the Welsh language and other languages. Indeed, suggestions have been made by certain people that we should study Japanese. I think that that is a good idea, because it might encourage more diversity of interest and more international interest in the University of Wales.
The UGC has not given Wales a good deal. We want the Minister to accept the amendment so that there will be a written commitment in the Act that there will be a subcommittee for Wales which will be treated as a special case so that attention can be given to the problems of Wales and so that the University of Wales can have a proper deal.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brid.gend (Mr. Griffiths) on his comments from the Front Bench.
We should remind the Minister of the uniqueness of the University of Wales. It has a federal structure; a structure that perhaps does not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The University of Wales is the people's university and was created by the people of Wales. There should be special arrangements such as those mentioned in the amendment. These arrangements should ensure that the funding of the university is protected and that our colleges are preserved.
I support the amendment and hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said this evening.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I welcome the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to the Front Bench. I hope that my compliments will not devastate his career.
I shall deal with whether there should be a Welsh Committee of the Universities Funding Council. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on Second Reading, and as I reiterated in Committee, the Government will look to the UFC, using its power under paragraph 9 of schedule 6, to set up a Welsh committee, together with committees for Scotland, Northern Ireland and for medical education. I commend paragraph 9 to the attention of hon. Members, because that is where the power to set up committees can be found.
I do not think that there is any need to write anything further into this Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I suggest that hon. Members look at schedule 6, which states that power to appoint committees is given to the UFC, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board.
I can assure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr.Thomas)—

Mr. Rowlands: That schedule simply says:
The Corporation may establish a committee".
It does not say "shall" establish a committee. It does not say that after a committee is established it can be terminated. What guarantees do we have, except verbal guarantees from the Minister, that such things will happen?

Mr. Roberts: The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading about his expectations of the UFC and my reiteration of that statement in Committee are adequate. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the Bill and specify each and every committee that the UFC will have. Obviously it will have a number of such committees, but it is, in part, for the UFC to work out the details of the committees that it needs. However, it is committed by my right hon. Friend to establishing the committees that I have mentioned.

Mr. John Morris: Is that a serious objection that the Minister is putting before the House, that one should not be prescriptive? Is that not what legislation is about? Why does he not write it into the Bill? Is not the real truth that he and his Secretary of State have lost the battle with the DES, the most centralist Ministry in the kingdom?

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. There is complete agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
I can tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that we expect that the committee will concern itself with broad issues affecting the university sector in Wales, including the need for collaboration with the public sector. It will also provide a channel through which my right hon. Friend's wider policies for the Principality can be taken into account by the Universities Funding Council. The title "right hon. Friend" covers both Secretaries of State—indeed, all Secretaries of State.
Appointments to the Welsh committee will be a matter for the UFC, although we shall want it to consult my right hon. Friends. We envisage that the committee will include members drawn from the Wales Advisory Body, the University of Wales and employer interests in the Principality. I assure the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that we do indeed expect great things from this committee, but the Government believe that it would be wrong to require a Welsh committee, or any other specific committee in the Bill whose overall nature is to facilitate rather than to be prescriptive.
There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about prescription. The Opposition accused the Government of being too prescriptive in the general structure that we are establishing for the funding of higher education. That is not so, of course. The Government have put down amendments Nos. 124 to 136, which are the next batch to be discussed by the House, to put that entirely beyond doubt.
The Opposition have sought to insert into the legislation all sorts of detailed requirements about how the funding councils should go about their jobs. These amendments are yet another example of that, and I do not think that it would be a help to anyone to get this kind of detail set in legislative concrete.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that he did not want to put details in the Bill. Can he answer a very simple question? If the Welsh sub-committee of the funding council comes up with one set of propositions and it is turned down by the major United Kingdom funding committee, who decides — the Secretary of State for Wales, or the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mr. Roberts: We are talking about a sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council, which will be appointed by the council. There will be discussions within both the committee and the council, just as there are currently within the UGC. I shall come back to the university in a moment, but I am seeking to dispose of the amendment moved so ably by the hon. Member for Bridgend.
The Bill confers no responsibilities on the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in relation to Wales. There is, thus, no present need for a Welsh committee of the council. As for the future, we have made it clear that if and when the Government take a decision to transfer Welsh higher education institutions from the local authority sector, we wish to retain the two options, as I explained in Committee, of either placing them with the PCFC sector or funding them direct. If they were in the PCFC sector, a Welsh committee could be established under schedule 6, paragraph 9, but, as with the UFC, this is not a matter for legislative concrete. Clearly the issues would not arise if the institutions were funded direct.

Mr. John: While the hon. Gentleman is system building, or perhaps empire building, in his dreams about the polytechnic, will he assure me that he will take some action to end the scandal of the funding of the Polytechnic of Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I assure the hon. Member that the Wales Advisory Body is re-examining the funding methodology for higher education, in particular in connection with the polytechnic. Meanwhile, I must remind him that the polytechnic's funding was increased by 10·9 per cent. for this academic year and will be increased by another 10 per cent. for 1988–89, which amounts to a 21 per cent. increase over two years. I assure him that we are looking at the position of the polytechnic again.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were, I believe, originally connected with new clause 60. His proposal is that there should be arrangements for funding higher education in Wales for both university and non-university sectors. It is further proposed that the two sectors should be funded through a single university and colleges funding council for Wales. I do not accept that this is the best approach to higher education in Wales.
Let us consider, first, the position of the University of Wales under these arrangements. Its funding would become the responsibility of a council responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and that council, with responsibility for funding only the University of Wales, would find either that it had very little scope for planning or—and perhaps this is more likely—that it could not avoid being embroiled in the internal affairs of the university.
The University of Wales, as we all know, is a federal university. I know that there are grounds for saying that it would be in the interests of the university and of its constituent colleges for the university to be perceived to a


greater extent than is the case at present as a large and powerful federal university. As I said in Committee, steps are now being taken to see how the university's central role can be strengthened. Hon. Gentlemen will know that Lord Cledwyn, as pro-Chancellor, with the full agreement of the university, has established a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Goronwy Daniel to consider how the university structure might be strengthened.
There have been recent moves towards rationalisation which have shown an encouraging tendency towards federal action. The effect of enacting these amendments would, I think, be to nullify any serious attempt that the university might make to act as a single institution. Indeed, I suspect that the effect of a funding body for Wales alone, making decisions and judgments as between the colleges, would so usurp the university's own prerogatives as fatally to weaken the federal structure. There are some, of course, who would applaud that, but many more, I am sure, would feel with me that the break-up of the university would be a disaster, especially for the smaller, more vulnerable and more distinctively Welsh colleges.
That being so, it is not surprising that the University of Wales is opposed to the aims of these amendments. I ask the House to take serious note of the university's own view, as expressed very clearly in evidence to the Croham committee, that it is in its best interests to continue to be funded as an integral part of the university sector in the United Kingdom. I recognise the special role that the university has in Wales, in relation to both the culture and the economy of the Principality—matters in which my right hon. Friend has specific responsibility. The exercise of those responsibilities brings him into contact with the university and its colleges very frequently. However, it would be inappropriate, given its international as well as its national standing, for the University of Wales to be divorced from the rest of the university sector in the United Kingdom. After all, two thirds of its students come from outside Wales, and we are not in the business of directing those Welsh students who elect to go to English or Scottish universities to stay at home. The University of Wales is a very Welsh institution, but it is also a United Kingdom institution, and the amendments would clearly put at risk its standing in the wider context — [Interruption.] Several hon. Members have spoken on such matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and I know that certain hon. Members, representing Welsh constituencies, are especially interested and entitled to have a proper and meaningful reply.
7 pm
Turning now to the polytechnics and colleges sector in Wales, section 178(2) and (3) specifically exclude Wales from the PCFC funding arrangements. There is a reserve power in section 178(4) that would enable the Welsh public sector higher education institutions to be transferred to the PCFC by order should that be considered necessary in the future. As with any other reserve power, it may never be used. Its relevance to the amendments that we are considering is that it envisages the possibility of transferring the institutions to the PCFC, not to a separate Welsh PCFC. Our reason for that is the small size of the higher education sector in Wales. Only six Welsh institutions meet the criteria in clause 100 for transfer to the PCFC sector.
We have considered whether, if the reserve power to transfer the Welsh institutions to the PCFC sector were

activated, it should be to one PCFC that would cover England and Wales or to a separate Welsh PCFC. I concede that the idea of a separate body has its attractions from a Welsh point of view, but in no way could I justify the cost of an independent body to plan and fund so small a sector.
A further option exists if it should be decided to remove the polytechnic and the other higher education colleges from local authority control. The Welsh Office could take over the funding responsibility itself. Powers already exist in section 100 of the 1944 Act which would make it possible for the Department to fund the institutions direct. Indeed, we are already using these powers to fund our one voluntary college—Trinity college, Carmarthen.

Dr. Thomas: I understand the impatience of some hon. Members who are present, but this is an important debate about the structure of higher education in Wales, and it is right that we should have it. Will the Minister give us some indication of the Government's thinking on the options that he rehearsed in Committee, because the education system in Wales is entitled to hear his preferred option?

Mr. Roberts: I want to make it clear that at present there is no intention of exercising either of the options. For the time being we intend to work closely with the local authorities and to continue with the Wales Advisory Body arrangements that were established in 1983. It is a partnership arrangement between the local authorities and the Welsh Office which works satisfactorily for the small number of colleges involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I chair the committee of the Wales Advisory Body, the members of which are nominated by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Welsh Counties Committee. Through the WAB arrangements we have a means of planning the sector on an all-Wales basis, rather than on a local basis. This will be increasingly important in the period between now and the mid-1990s, during which the number of 18-year-olds will fall significantly and competition for students will become more intense. I believe that the Wales Advisory Body will be able to undertake this planning role effectively, and that is how we intend to leave it.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am extremely disappointed with that reply, first, because the commitment that we got was that the Universities Funding Council would be looking to use its powers under schedule 6. I stress that the commitment was that it would be "looking", and not "doing" it. Those powers are optional, not compulsory. The idea that we are being detailed or prescriptive to ask for a Welsh sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council is ludicrous. This is a fundamental right for Wales and should be in the Bill. We shall definitely seek a Division on that.
Secondly, we did not intend to seek to press the amendments relating to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to the vote. We wanted to find out from the Minister the answer to the question that I asked in Committee, and the answer to the question that I asked again this evening.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred to the talent of the Minister as a writer of sonnets. Well, I thought that I was getting the Mabinogion this evening. However, despite the long reply,


I still have not had an answer to my question about the corresponding activities of the Welsh and English colleges under this part of the Bill.

Mr. Roberts: In one sentence, of course both English and Welsh colleges are entitled to recruit from whichever country or wherever they want.

Mr. Griffiths: My question was: "Could an English polytechnic or college, which is totally free-standing, open annexes in Wales because the position would not be the same for Welsh polytechnics or colleges" which, being incorporated under the Companies Acts, and not being legally independent, could not do the same in England?

Mr. Roberts: That is a very hypothetical situation.

Mr. Griffiths: That is one good reason for us voting against the whole Bill again. We shall seek to press our first three amendments to Divisions.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 293.

Division No. 231]
[7.7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Alton, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Battle, John
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp;R'dish)
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Holland, Stuart


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
John, Brynmor


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dixon, Don
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)





Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redmond, Martin


Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Leadbitter, Ted
Reid, Dr John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Richardson, Jo


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Livsey, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McKay, Allen (Bamsley West)
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Bob
Short, Clare


McWilliarn, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Wall, Pat


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walley, Joan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N.


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Ray Powell and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Frank Cook.


Radice, Giles



NOES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Atkins, Robert
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Churchill, Mr


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottom ley, Peter
Cope, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey






Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rost, Peter


King; Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom





Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Walters, Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Whitney, Ray


Stokes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Thorne, Neil

Question accordingly negatived.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 105, line 43, at end insert,
'or the practice of any profession'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, we shall take the following amendments : No. 10, in page 105, line 44, after 'responsible', insert
'for keeping under review and for advising the Secretary of State on the needs of the United Kingdom for university teaching and research, and'.
No. 11, in page 106, line 6. leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) The Council shall make grants to universities in the United Kingdom, subject to terms and conditions, in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section.'.
No. 140, in page 106, line 9, at end insert
'Provided that any term or condition imposed by the Council under this subsection shall not unreasonably constrain the university in the exercise of its judgment as to the best use of resources in pursuance of its academic objectives'.
No. 141, in page 106, line 9, at end insert
'And provided always that in determining payments to be made under this subsection to any university the Council shall not make reductions in such payments by reason of funds available to that university from sources other than public funds'.
No. 12, in page 106, line 10, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) The Council shall have power—

(a) to monitor and review the expenditure and management by the universities of such grants; and
(b) to collect, examine and publish comparative information about the universities which universities may give the Council for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under this section.



(7A) Any terms or conditions imposed by the Council under subsection (6) above shall not apply to any funds which are derived from sources other than the Council.'.
Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
No. 408, in clause 111, page 106, line 43, at end insert
'in such a manner as to secure the efficient, flexible and comprehensive provision of such activities having regard to other higher educational facilities provided by universities, higher education corporations and other bodies and to any local scheme for the co-ordination of further and higher education drawn up by the local education authority.'.
Government amendment No. 127.
No. 409, in page 107, line 25, leave out 'and'.
No. 410, in page 107, line 29, at end insert
'; and
(c) to advise the Secretary of State as to the funding needs of the sector for which the Council is responsible, where appropriate in co-operation with the Universities Funding Council; and
in respect of any such advice under paragraph (c) above, the Secretary of State shall take the advice into account in making a determination as to the level of funding to be made available to the Council.'.
No. 438, in page 107, line 29, at end insert
',and
(c) shall consult on a regular basis with the bodies listed in Subsection (9) below'.
No. 13, in clause 112, page 107, line 39, after 'may', insert
'after consultation with the Funding Councils,'.
Government amendment No. 128.
No 455, in page 107, line 40, leave out 'he thinks fit' and insert
'may be approved in an Order, a draft of which has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
Government amendment No. 129.
No. 453, in page 108, line 2, after 'payments', insert
'shall relate to those payments and '.
Government amendment No. 130.
No. 14, in page 108, line 3, leave out from 'part' to end of line 4 and insert
'those sums paid by the Council to which terms and conditions were attached and not complied with; and.' Government amendments Nos. 131 to 133.
No. 15, in page 108, line 10, at end insert
'except that such amounts and such conditions shall not be in respect of an individual institution or its activities.'
Government amendment No. 134.
No. 16, in page 108, line 12, leave out from 'with' to end of line 13 and insert
'those directions given to them by the Secretary of State which shall be made only by orders which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
No. 412, in page 108, line 13, at end insert
'of a general nature, where such directions do not relate to a named institution or the allocation of funds to an individual institution'.
No. 454, in page 108, line 13, at end insert
'the terms of which shall be contained in an Order which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
Government amendments Nos. 135 and 136.
No. 458, in page 108, line 25 at end insert—
'(8A) The Chairman of the Universities Funding Council, of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board shall sit on each others Council'.

Mr. Baker: This will be a short but important debate on a matter that came up frequently in Committee—the relationship of the Secretary of State with the new

Universities Funding Council and the relationship of the Universities Funding Council with the universities that it funds.
Amendments Nos. 124 to 136 fulfil the undertakings that I gave in Committee on 16 February. Their main purpose is to make clear on the face of the Bill certain aspects of the relationship between the holder of my office and the newly-established Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, and between the two funding councils and the institutions.
A number of overlapping amendments to clauses 110 to 112 have been tabled, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who got his amendments on the Amendment Paper before the Government did, and also by the Opposition. I believe that amendments Nos. 124 to 136 effectively meet their concerns.
Under the present higher education funding arrangements, the holder of my office has substantial implicit powers to safeguard the considerable taxpayers' interests. We are talking of a sum of about £2.5 billion a year. Hon. Members will know that under the existing arrangements for the University Grants Committee, which was, in effect, set up by a Treasury minute, theoretically I—I must be more humble — the holder of my office has sweeping powers over the universities in that he can direct the UGC to cut off money to a university or to stop funding a particular discipline. Of course, I would not use those powers in that way. None of my predecessors has. It would be unthinkable that they would be used in such a way. But when one comes to set up a statutory body, such as the UFC and the PCFC, one has to define precisely the relationships and the relative powers that one has.
The new statutory framework requires explicit provision to be made not only for the funding councils' powers but also for those which I or my successors might exercise. This group of amendments makes clear on the face of the Bill what was always intended — the limitations on the Government's and the funding councils' powers.
First, let me deal with conditions and directions. Amendment No. 132 makes it clear that the conditions on which the UFC and the PCFC make payments to institutions may relate only to the use of those payments. There is no question of their, or, through them, the holder of my office, being able to limit or control the funds which institutions receive from other sources. I have given that assurance verbally and it now appears on the face of the Bill. The UFC or the PCFC would not wish to get at private funds or money raised by universities in other ways or of which they are in receipt.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend was good enough to give such an assurance some weeks ago at Question Time, but one niggling problem remains. Although he has given the assurance, then and now, that nobody will exercise any power over money that is raised by universities, is there any danger that the UFC may take money that is raised voluntarily? I have a particular interest because Lancaster university is good at a lot of things, particularly at raising funds. Is there any danger that the UFC may decide to make deductions because a university is particularly good at raising outside funds?

Mr. Baker: That point is covered by an amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury


(Mr. Raison). As he may try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, suffice to say that the short answer is no, but I shall elaborate later. I have visited the university of Lancaster and I pay tribute to the effectiveness of that university and of the vice chancellor in raising funds so resourcefully.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 make it clear that any conditions that the Secretary of State may attach to his funding of the councils shall not relate to their treatment of particular institutions. That makes explicit the commitment that we have given consistently that the Government will not involve themselves in decisions about the allocation of funds between individual institutions.
Amendment No. 135 fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee. Any long-stop directions by the Secretary of State to the funding councils will be by order, and, therefore, by virtue of clause 180, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 127 empower the funding councils to advise the Secretary of State. That right will be unfettered. The amendment will not allow the Government to control what it is advised on by the councils. I have no doubt that their advice will cover the financial needs of the institutions and we shall certainly consider it carefully.
Amendment No. 125 also empowers the UFC to advise the Department of Education for Northern Ireland on the funding of the universities in the Province in the same way as the UGC does now. Given the aim of clarifying responsibilities, that continuing relationship needs to be covered in legislation rather than be left non-statutory.
There was some criticism that the power of the UFC and the PCFC to give advice was fettered in some way in that the holder of my office would have to agree the manner in which the advice was given.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is what the amendment says.

Mr. Baker: I am aware of what my amendment says. I have a capacity to read and understand. I have tried to demonstrate it from time to time as the Bill has been passing through the House.
Let me draw the attention of the House to a letter from the chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, Professor Sir Mark Richmond, which was published in The Independent yesterday, in which he said:
I do not agree with your report that Mr. Baker has backtracked on his commitment to empower the Funding Councils for higher education to give advice to the Government. The wording of his amendment, while less all-embracing than the Vice-Chancellor's Committee might have chosen, makes clear that the Secretary of State will not have the power to determine whether, or when, or on what topics (including finance), the Councils give advice. He will determine only 'in what manner', ie, whether publicly or privately, this is done. There can be advantages in giving advice in private; it can be blunter. Nor do I believe that any chairmen of the Funding Council worth their salt will be muzzled.
I want to thank Sir Mark Richmond for making that position clear and for the way in which he has conducted our discussions as the chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. He has presented its case strongly and forcefully and it is a case to which we have listened.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Who will decide whether such advice will be in public or private — the Secretary of State or the chairman of the funding body?

Mr. Baker: As I have said, the amendment says that the Secretary of State has the power to decide, but in such matters, with the degree of confidence that exists between me and the existing UGC, we would talk about such matters and, no doubt, about the way in which things should be done. Since I have held this office I have twice had advice from the UGC on the main funding. Each time it came to me privately. It was full advice and it was more effective for being private. That has been my experience as the holder of my office.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister's comments now stand completely at variance with the disparaging remarks made by Ministers in Committee about the CVCP. I hope that he will draw his comments to its attention to put the record straight on the role of the CVCP. As he has prayed Sir Mark Richmond in aid on this important matter, I hope that he will also heed his views on academic freedom.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the debate after 8 pm. As I said, Sir Mark Richmond presents his case forcefully. That does not mean that I agree with every aspect of what he says. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a pleasant and friendly relationship with the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. I enjoy meeting its members. They are a civilised bunch of people.

Mr. Dalyell: Reference has been made to an article in The Independent. There is a further article in that newspaper today in relation to Christopher Hood and the whole question of tenure. Professor Christopher Hood, an Australian lecturer who was previously at the university of Glasgow, was very critical of the Secretary of State on the question of promoted lecturers losing tenure. Would this be a convenient moment to comment on that issue?

Mr. Baker: No, it would not, for the very good reason that I have not read the relevant part of the newspaper, although I will seek to read it or have it available when the debate on tenure starts at 8 o'clock.
There were two other legs to the package of amendments that I announced in Committee—amendments Nos. 128 and 129 and the consequential amendment No. 136—which limit any additional functions conferred on the funding councils to those which could in any event be exercised by the Secretary of State and which are properly related to the institution funded by the council in question. The provision is about the delegation of existing functions in relation to higher education. As amended, there can be no possibility that a future Secretary of State could use his power to create completely new interventionist functions.
The other leg concerns the power of the funding councils to seek repayment of funds. Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 make clear that the councils will have discretion over whether the repayment of funds should be sought in the event of non-compliance with conditions. In any case, repayment may be only in respect of funds for which a particular condition has not been met.
Finally, amendments Nos. 124 and 126 fulfil the commitment that I gave in Committee to make clear in the Bill that non-academic members of the funding councils may be drawn from the professions. I am very glad to move the amendments formally. They were outlined in Committee and represent substantial changes. I am glad


that it has been possible to come to an agreement with the vice chancellors of our universities along the lines that they find acceptable. It will be broadly and widely welcomed in the universities and across the House tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we proceed further and the vice chancellors, or anybody else, criticise the House of Commons for not being interested, may I draw the attention of the House to how empty the Press Gallery is during this important debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a good point, however, that a large number of journalists in the Gallery on occasions criticise hon. Members about their attendance, but on an issue as important as this they do not seem to feel it is worth their while to pay attention.

Mr. Jackson: That is the last time that the hon. Gentleman will be mentioned.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I appreciate that.
It is ridiculous that the procedures of the House dictate that all of the clauses relating to polytechnics and academic freedom in this part of the Bill must be debated in two hours. We are considering clause 109 to clause 134 in two hours, and, having allowed a short time for Welsh issues, we are down to 40 minutes in which to examine six Government undertakings and the nine amendments with which they seek to fulfil those undertakings.
I agree with the Secretary of State that amendment No. 124, which widens the possibility of appointing people with professional experience to the public sector funding council and the Universities Funding Council, is very welcome. But most academic people would feel that a far greater proportion of those 15 people who will serve on those bodies should have academic experience, as opposed to the Government's suggestion.
Amendment No. 125 deals with the question of how advice will be offered. The Secretary of State's original statement in his press release was to the effect that funding bodies would be free to offer advice, whereas the Secretary of State has put some very miserable words in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot put a clear statement into the Bill giving the committees power to exercise their right to give him advice. Why should he, as the wording of the Bill says, decide whether it should be in public or in private? Surely the committees ought to be entitled to judge whether in their view it is more helpful to make their comments in private or in public. Why should the Secretary of State decide ultimately, as the legislation provides, which approach is more appropriate?
I suspect that on some occasions the Secretary of State is under pressure from Treasury Ministers to accept the option of giving advice in private, because that reduces pressure on the Government, and inevitably he has to toe the Government line and suggest that comments are made in private. The Secretary of State would really strengthen his hand if advice was given in public, so that people could see what arguments were being put forward about public funding. No doubt the House of Lords will return to the point, but it is sad, when the Government claim to be offering concessions, that they still put such weasel words into the Bill.
The Opposition certainly welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the institutions will have total freedom over their own money, although I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in practice it will be more complicated. Where institutions raise money for equipment, inevitably the funding bodies will feel that it is not necessary for them to come up with the money for it. It would be ridiculous for a funding body to fund a particular piece of equipment if the money for it had been raised privately. But the inter-relationship between private funding and money from the Government will be strong. Although it is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has put these extra words into the Bill to make it clear that funding bodies will not have direction over money that institutions raise themselves, he ought to recognise that there are far more problems in funding than he has suggested.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not intend to give specific directions to funding bodies to deal with particular institutions. He did not deal with the current and very important topic of how far institutions will develop in a selective way, and whether there will be selective funding of top, middle and bottom-tier institutions and universities, or whether there will be, say, top-tier departments. Once we start to move into this area, particularly if the Government are pushing ahead with the idea of preferred and less preferred departments, we will be returning close to the point where, in practice, funding bodies will discriminate against particular institutions.
Next came the Secretary of State's great concession that any extra duties placed on funding bodies would be subject to negative order. Following the experience today during business questions and the uproar about the regulations on the poll tax in Scotland, he must realise that negative orders are very difficult procedures on which hon. Members can have an impact. If the Secretary of State claims that the regulation will be rarely used to confer new duties, he could have used affirmative orders. No doubt he is holding back so that he can make a further concession in the House of Lords. I am sure that it would have cleared up matters in this area more effectively if he had agreed to using the affirmative procedure, particularly as he claims that the power would rarely need to be used.
The Secretary of State knows that if an affirmative order is put forward on a completely uncontroversial issue, it can be put through Committee in about 30 seconds on a Wednesday morning. Only when it is a contentious matter will it be debated on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State's idea that the negative order procedure is more suitable than the affirmative order procedure certainly leaves the Opposition somewhat disappointed.
When the Secretary of State was dealing with the concessions, he failed to mention the aspect of the money necessary for restructuring, particularly for universities. Perhaps he will deal with that matter in the debate after 8 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman, together with the Under-Secretary, often made great play in Committee of the £150 million extra that will be available for restructuring, although some people would say that it was for cutting, staff.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The relevant amendment comes in the next section of the debate. Only 20 minutes are left in which other hon. Members can speak on the amendments in this part, so I should be grateful if


the hon. Gentleman would leave that amendment until the next debate, when there will be two hours in which to speak.

Mr. Bennett: I was making the point that it would have been helpful if we had been given information about this. I hope that the Minister will tell us during the next debate whether the money will be available for future restructuring, as he promised in Committee. He claimed that he would come up with the concessions that were promised in Committee, but a commitment on that is noticeable by its absence from the list of amendments.
In Committee, we were concerned that there should be one funding body for higher education. It is illogical to go on with two separate bodies—one for the universities and one for the public sector. This should have been the time to set up one funding body—

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the concessions, the Secretary of State has effectively excluded the holder of his office as a potential threat to academic freedom in any university?

Mr. Bennett: I do not accept that, because the Secretary of State did not tell us about the issue of selectivity for departments and institutions. If the Government are prepared to make it clear that they do not want a selective system for institutions but only for departments, that would go some way in the right direction.
As I said, there should be only one funding body, and the Government have missed this opportunity. By insisting that the two funding bodies will be separate, the Government are not trying to develop one secretariat and one system of recording information, so we shall go on with the polytechnics and universities criticising each other and arguing over how they are treated when it comes to funding. It is sad that the Government have not taken this opportunity to deal with funding once and for all.
The major problem with accountability is that the Secretary of State will make all the appointments and they will not be subject to scrutiny. We believe that Select Committees would have been one way of making these people accountable to the country, as opposed to the Secretary of State.
In the final analysis, much comes down to what the Government say rather than legislation. When Lord Joseph was in charge of the Department, he continually ran down the arts and social sciences in higher education institutions and praised science. The climate that the Secretary of State creates is important. Sadly, the climate planned by the Secretary of State for the next 10 years is one of more cuts and the removal of tenure for future appointments. Higher education will contract. The future of the country and of higher education depends on a climate in which there is expansion, not contraction. The future prosperity of this country and its democracy depends on high quality higher education, and it is sad that the main emphasis of the Bill plans to contract rather than expand it.

Mr. Hawkins: I have inherited a surfeit of riches today but have no time in which to spend them. I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 140 and 141—

Mr. Flannery: We did not apply the guillotine—the Government did.

Mr. Hawkins: It is, nevertheless—

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: The Labour Government applied the guillotine at least as often as we have, so the hon. Gentleman should not be such a hypocrite.
I want to record the thanks of all members of the Standing Committee for the help that we received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the AUT and many others in universities on this part of the Bill.
This could be a long speech, but I shall say only that I took a fair amount of stick from Opposition Members in Committee for not pressing my amendments to the vote after my right hon. Friend had given an undertaking to bring forward the amendments that he has brought before the House on Report. I greatly welcome the amendments that he has tabled; they meet all the commitments that he gave in Committee. What he has done will go a long way to increasing the acceptability of this important Bill to the universities, and I thank him for that.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I want to direct a specific question to the Secretary of State about the importance of giving polytechnics the freedom to manage their own resources.
Under the local education authority framework., polytechnics have been free to carry over from one financial year to the next the under or over-spending o:n their budget heads. Until now, there has been no silly rush to spend up in the closing days of the financial year. Similarly, the polytechnic in my area—and others—has been able to accumulate reserves as a buffer against unexpected fluctuations in expenditure.
Will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that polytechnics will not lose, under corporate status, the important flexibilities which local government has given them? It would be disastrous if polytechnics were treated as non-departmental public bodies. There is no reason why they should not enjoy financial arrangements similar to those that govern universities; and to deny there that flexibility would be to impose the double handicap of hampering their competitiveness and adding to their administrative costs. This is a point of great importance to polytechnics and I hope that the Secretary of State will give it a straight reply.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I want to refer to two important amendments, Nos. 140 and 141, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (M r. Hawkins), myself and others.
Amendment No. 140 is designed to limit the terms and conditions that the Universities Funding Council could put on payments to a university. It is designed to stop any unreasonable interference in the running of a university and the way in which it manages its resources. As we all know—my right hon. Friend must face this—we have a long tradition in this country of freedom in universities and their relationships with the Government. That is tremendously important. There has also been a long tradition of freedom for the University Grants Committee to distribute the resources that Parliament and the Secretary of State give to it. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that with amendment No. 134, which is all to the good.
There is a similar, and equally important, tradition of freedom for the way in which universities spend the money


that the UGC has given them. Of course, there are constraints; there must be. Sometimes the money may be tied to specific initiatives. Sometimes it is given for some form of rationalisation of activities between universities. Increasingly, we must recognise and accept that today. There is, too, the basic point of accountability. Nevertheless, the fundamental freedom remains, and so it should. It is part of a proud tradition in a pluralist society.
My right hon. Friend has clearly said that he does not want to centralise everything. In Nottingham in January he said that the universities will have greater freedom to manage their affairs than they have now, which is in line with his policy towards schools and opting out. It is part of the desire to introduce greater freedom. Universities must exercise their freedom responsibly, and I am sure they will. It is right that the additional safeguards embodied in amendment No. 140 should be included, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it.
Amendment No. 141 is also important. It is designed to require that, when a university raises money from other sources, it should not then have the money that it would receive from the Universities Funding Council reduced. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and it is surely right. If a university is successful in raising money from private sources, industry or charities, it should not be liable for a fall in its receipts from the Universities Funding Council.
I think that my right hon. Friend understands the point. Last October he told the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the Government had repeatedly said that they would not abate public support if universities succeeded in raising more private funds. In that context he has recognised in amendment No. 132 that there will be no abatement in the amount of money from central Government to the Universities Funding Council to take account of any money which universities may raise.
We need a further specific amendment to make it clear that the same principle would apply to the Universities Funding Council; in other words, if universities raise money by their own efforts, the UFC will not reduce the amount paid to those universities. It is straightforward common sense. If donors who contribute substantial sums to universities think that that will simply be knocked off the grants given by the Universities Funding Council, the donors will say, "What is the point of giving money to a university?" It would be very depressing if donors were allowed to get into that frame of mind. The Government are right to put emphasis on trying to generate new sources of wealth not just for universities but for the arts and so on. Amendment No. 141 is devoted entirely to reinforcing that principle. I profoundly hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept amendments Nos. 140 and 141.

Mr. Batiste: Time is short, so I shall be brief. The Government amendments implement the concessions made in Committee on the Universities Funding Council. They are important because they provide a buffer between the Secretary of State and the universities and defuse many of the genuine concerns expressed on behalf of universities. I believe that the UFC will be a better organisation because of the amendments. Most important, these

measures effectively remove the holder of the office of Secretary of State as a potential threat to academic freedom in any institution.
If I should be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak further on this in the consequent debate. I simply ask now that members in another place note that my right hon. Friend has responded fully to genuine concern, which was properly argued, with comprehensive amendments which meet those fears.
I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to my concern about the inconsistency in the composition of the Universities Funding Council by adding a provision for the inclusion of professionals on those bodies. Many graduates are recruited by the profession and without representation on those bodies they would be the poorer.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for the comments that he has just made. I look upon the amendments not as concessions but as clarification. If they were dragged from me, I was willing to have them dragged; Barkis was willing.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked about the roll-over flexibility for polytechnics. I understand the point. I am considering it. I cannot make a statement about it now, but I am aware of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked about redundancy compensation. He raised the matter in Committee. I appreciate that he has shown concern as the Bill has progressed that its provisions might lead to senior academics with good records being dismissed without compensation and accordingly demands some kind of statutory protection. I acknowledge his concern. I have looked into the matter and I do not think that the concern is well founded. I have not been able to discover an example in which an academic left his post at the university's instigation, other than on dismissal for good cause, without receiving generous compensation.
I am confident that universities will continue to show themselves to be good employers. The Government are making substantial funds available — £155 million—to help universities to meet the cost of compensation. I am still considering whether there is anything further that I can and should do to reassure academics that fears of dismissal without compensation other than for good cause are unfounded. There will be an opportunity to return to the issue in another place. Because of the phraseology, it has proved difficult to make changes on the face of the Bill. Such changes as I have considered do not improve the position but make it worse for many academics. For the time being I consider that we should avoid statutory interference in the operation of the voluntary schemes of compensation of individual universities.
I understand the spirit which drove my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to table amendment No. 140. However, it is difficult to provide for it in statutory form. The position now is that a university will prepare an academic plan and the funding which is made available will reflect that academic plan. It may be that some conditions should be attached to certain parts of it. I hesitate to say so, but, as he rightly recognises, the conditions will be imposed by the Universities Funding Council, not by the Secretary of State. I can only impose general conditions upon the amount of money that I make available through the UFC. I have referred to £155


million. I would not have got that from the Treasury had I not been able to impose a general condition that it was to be used for restructuring. That is not just to pay for redundancy compensation. There are within those funds substantial amounts of new money.
Amendment No. 141 deals with new sources of wealth for universities. My right hon. Friend recognises that universities are seeking new sources of money. I have encouraged them to do that, as has my right hon. Friend and many others. Universities are finding new sources of finance much more energetically than in the past. My right hon. Friend wants a statutory declaration that when they go out on fund-raising drives, which are becoming common, they will have statutory protection from reduction of funding from the UFC. I think my right hon. Friend will appreciate that that is technically difficult to achieve because it presupposes that one can determine what the level of funding is likely to be.
It is largely a matter of policy, but I will reinforce the policy. It is definitely Government policy to encourage universities to diversify their sources of funding. Some university interests assert that the Government encourage private earnings solely to spare the public purse. That is not so. We have made clear consistently, and I reaffirm tonight, that we will not abate overall public support if universities succeed in raising private funds. I hope that that statement is clear.

Mr. Raison: Of course, I welcome that statement, but it is a statement about what will be given to the Universities Funding Council. The amendment deals with what the UFC will do with regard to universities. I understand that there may be technical difficulties, but it is an important point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least say that a search will be made to find a way of producing something which is technically viable and that there will be an opportunity to consider it in another place.

Mr. Baker: I am always happy to engage in a search to find something better. We have engaged in a search and it is very difficult. It presupposes that one can say what the funding would have been in certain circumstances and then say that it should not be abated. The problem lies in determining what the funding would have been.
I have tried to express the clear policy of the Government. I have every sympathy with the principle that individual universities should not be discouraged from increasing their private funding, as would obviously happen if the UFC were to abate the funding accordingly. That would run directly counter to Government policy. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall make our view clear to the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 106, line 12, after 'section', insert—
'(aa) to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this section as they think fit;
(ab) to provide the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, on such terms as may be agreed, with such advisory services as the Department may require in connection with the discharge of the Department's functions relating to universities in Northern Ireland;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 111

POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES FUNDING COUNCIL.

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 106, line 36, at end insert
'or the practice of any profession'.

No. 127, in page 107, line 25, after 'section' insert—
'(aa) to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this section as they think fit;'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 112

THE FUNDING COUNCILS : ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 128, in page 107, line 40, leave out 'additional' and insert 'supplementary'.

No. 129 in page 107, line 47, at end insert—
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a function is a supplementary function, in relation to either of the funding councils, if it is exercisable for the purposes of—

(a) the exercise by the Secretary of State of functions of his under any enactment; or
(b) the doing by the Secretary of State of anything he has power to do apart from any enactment;

and it relates to, or to the activities of, institutions eligible for funding by that Council.'.

No. 130, in page 108, line 3, leave out 'requiring' and insert
'enabling the Council to require'.

No. 131, in page 108, line 4, after 'condition', insert
'subject to which the sums were paid'.

No. 132, in page 108, line 7, at end insert
'but shall not relate to the application by the body to whom the payments are made of any sums derived otherwise than from payments made by the Council.'.

No. 133, in page 108, line 8, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 134, in page 108, line 10, at end insert—
'(3A) The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of payments by the Council to any specified institution.'.

No. 135, in page 108, line 13, at end insert—
'(4A) Directions given for the purposes or subsection (4) above shall be given by order made by the Secretary of State.'

No. 136, in page 108, line 25, at end insert
;and the reference in subsection (1A) above to institutions eligible for funding by either of those Councils is a reference—

(a) in relation to the Universities Funding Council, to universities; and
(b) in relation to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to—


(i) institutions within the PCFC funding sector; and
(ii) institutions maintained or assisted by local education authorities, other than universities, at which prescribed courses of higher education are currently provided.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 116

SCHEMES FOR FINANCING LOCALLY FUNDED FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 261, in page 110, line 31, at end insert—


'(2A) The scheme shall also set out the principles and procedures to be applied by the authority in planning the educational provision to be made by institutions required to be covered by the scheme.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 262.

Mr. Baker: The effect of amendment No. 261 is to make it clear that the funding and delegation schemes that LEAs prepare under clause 116 must also set out the procedures that each LEA will use for planning provision in its FE colleges.
With respect to amendment No. 262, the Government amendments made in Committee restricted the application of the delegation of the governance provisions in the Bill to those assisted colleges that are designated as being substantially dependent for their maintenance on assistance from LEAs. Where—

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 7.

Amendments made: No. 261, in page 110, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) The scheme shall also set out the principles and procedures to be applied by the authority in planning the educational provision to be made by institutions required to be covered by the scheme.'.

No. 262, page 111, line 24, leave out from 'if to end of of line 28 and insert
'it is assisted by that authority and either—

(a) it is not assisted by any other local education authority; or
(b) that authority provides a larger proportion than any other local education authority by whom the institution is assisted of the aggregate amount of the sums received by the governing body of the institution during any financial year by way of assistance from such authorities in respect of the expenses of maintaining the institution:. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 117

INITIATION, IMPOSITION AND VARIATION OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 263, in page III, line 34, leave out 'such a scheme' and insert
'a scheme under that section'.

No. 264, in page 112, line 17, after 'authority', insert
'as required by that subsection'.

No. 265, page 112, line 30, leave out subsection (8) to (10).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 124

DELEGATION OF POWERS AS TO APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF STAFF

Amendment made: No. 266, in page 118, line 10, leave out
'notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority'

and insert
'such notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority as is required under that contract'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 126

INSTRUMENT AND ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT REQUIRED FOR MAINTAINED FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 267, in page 121, line 24, at end insert—
(5A) Before giving any direction under subsection (3) above or making any order under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 127

PROVISION REQUIRED IN INSTRUMENT AND ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT

Amendments made: No. 233, in page 121, line 38, after 'be', insert or to have been,'.

No. 234, in page 122, line 10, leave out from 'body' to end of line 11 and insert
'and of any academic board of the institution, and of subcommittees of such committees, and provide for the delegation of functions of the governing body and any such academic board to such committees, to the principal or to such other persons as may be specified by or determined in accordance with the articles.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 167

THE UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Ashdown: I beg to move amendment No. 450, in page 150, line 24, at end insert
'and who shall ensure the maintenance of academic freedom'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 146, in page 150, line 30, at end insert
'and
(c) to respect the principle of academic freedom.'
No. 446, in page 150, line 30, at end insert
'and
(c) to maintain freedom of enquiry and expression for academic staff at qualifying institutions'.
No. 370, in clause 168, page 150, line 48, at end insert—
(aa) provision for a statement, placing a duty upon the institution to secure academic freedom within the law for its members, as may be proposed by the institution and in terms agreed with the Commissioners;
(bb) procedures enabling disputes between the institutions and its members over alleged breaches of the duty imposed under paragraph (aa) above, to be heard and determined;'.
No. 380, in page 151, line 19, at end insert—
'and before granting such approval the Privy Council shall be satisfied that any such modification shall have had regard to the need to preserve academic freedom.'
No. 417, in page 151, line 38, at end insert—
'A member of staff shall not be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy where, at the time of dismissal, it is intended to replace the member of staff by a more junior person who would perform the same work.'
No. 418, in page 151, line 38, at end insert—
'(4A) No dismissal by reason of redundancy shall have effect unless reasonable attempts have been made to find suitable alternative employment within the institution.'
No. 144, in page 152, line 5, at end insert—
'(7) Any member of staff dismissed for any reasons falling under this section, other than under subsection (1)(b), shall receive that compensation at the time of the dismissal currently agreed between the institution and the Funding Council.'.


No. 415, in page 152, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
'(a) his first appointment or first contract of employment in any qualifying institution is entered into on or after 20th November 1987; or'.
No. 376, in page 152, line 14, leave out '1987' and insert '1990'.
No. 377, in page 152, line 22, leave out '1987' and insert '1990'.
No. 416, in page 152, line 38, at end insert—
'In particular, the Commissioners shall ensure that no modification of statutes under subsection (2) of this section shall apply to any person employed in any qualifying institution merely as a result of a change in contract or appointment brought about by a merger of one or more qualifying institutions with any othe educational institution on or after 20th November 1987 ':
No. 381, in page 152, line 41, at end insert—
', being apparent to Her Majesty that instrument does not interfere with the need to preserve academic freedom.'.

Mr. Ashdown: I am delighted to be able to move the amendment on Report, just as I moved a similar group in Committee, on the key issue of academic freedom. I am also delighted to have the support of the official Opposition in this matter. Indeed, I hope that I have the support of Conservative Members as well.
The words in the amendment were not chosen lightly or ill-advisedly. Nor was the place. The amendments appear right at the beginning of the relevant clause—clause 167—which deals with university commissioners. They are placed here specifically so that we can get round the business of having to define academic freedom. We are dealing with these amendments now because they relate to the first sentence in clause 167 and therefore all the subsections are conditional upon the wording.
The words have been carefully chosen to ensure the maintenance of academic freedom. We have tried to choose the words that appear in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to freedom of speech. That matter was introduced at the Government's behest predominantly to protect Conservative Members. No doubt the Government will claim that it is intended to protect everyone who wants to speak in universities. However, as we recall what happened, we are all aware that there was an attack on the freedom of speech predominantly of Conservative Members and that caused that measure to be introduced.
I believe that it is right and proper that freedom of speech should be assured. However, we must note that the Government did not find it difficult to find words to protect the freedom of speech of Conservative Members. However, when, as in this case, we are talking about protecting the academic freedom of academics in universities, the Government will argue that they cannot find appropriate words.
On my next point I part company with the official Opposition. I am not trying to defend or argue the case for tenure. I believe that tenure is an outdated and antiquated practice. Provided that there were alternative bulwarks against the erosion of academic freedom, I would be happy to see it abolished. I believe that tenure is partial and, at its very best, ineffective. It is partial because it does not apply to others in higher education, for example, to the PCFC whose academics are involved in equally important work. The Labour party has suggested, and we agree—indeed we made the suggestion first—that we should remove the binary divide and put together the universities

and polytechnics in a single body. I see no logic in supporting tenure which applies only to one sector and not the other.
Indeed, tenure does not apply to the whole sector. It applies to some universities and not others. Within universities it applies to some academics, not others. I believe that tenure is outdated. I would he happy to see it abolished provided—and that word must be emphasised—that some other bulwark to ensure academic freedom, to insure against the interference in the work of academics, their curiosity and right to express their views, is created. In that context, I believe that clause 167, which was so strongly argued in Committee, is now necessary. Indeed, that view is accepted strongly in the academic sector.

Mr. Batiste: Is there not an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's points when he argues, on the one hand, that tenure only applies partially in higher education, while, on the other hand, some general bulwark is needed to replace it? If academic freedom has survived in those parts of higher education where there is no tenure, surely that is the best method.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point and I will refer to it later.
I argue that academic freedom will be required and it should apply to the UFC and the PCFC sectors. It should apply across both sectors. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) made a good plant when he asked how, if this has been inadequate, academic freedom has survived without the statutory requirement elsewhere. The answer is simple. The threats that can be posed in the Bill in the form of the instruments present a threat to academic freedom of a kind that we have not seen before. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State himself will pose them.
The threat exists not least because the UFC, quite contrary to the Croham committee recommendations, is not its own creature, but a creature of the Government. I use the Croham committee's phrases there. The UFC is appointed by the Government of the day and it may be sacked by the Government of the day. There is no safeguard to ensure that an incoming Labour Government could not dismiss the UFC overnight and install its own placemen. We must look not at what this Secretary of State will do, but at the potential powers available to Secretaries of State for Education and Science in future.
I do not intend to argue the case for tenure. However, if the Government did not accept an academic freedom clause, tenure—partial and ineffective though it is —would nevertheless provide some kind of barrier to ensure academic freedom. Therefore, that is preferable to nothing at all.
There is justifiable concern across the whole spectrum of academia and elsewhere about insuring academic freedom so that it cannot be tampered with. We can understand those concerns among academics who have seen within their lifetimes the interference with acadernic freedom which has always been the first act of a tyrannical and despotic state. That happened in Germany and the Soviet Union, and it began to happen in the United States of America in McCarthy's era. It is perfectly reasonable that academics should be worried.
I want to make a broader argument. I believe that academic freedom, so long fought over and so anciently established, is not something simply convenient for academics. It is a fundamental freedom and human right


that lies at the heart of our democracy. It is important that academics should have the right to study what they want to study according to their own curiosity, not to Government diktat, and to say what they believe to be the truth. That is fundamental to the nature of our society.
The Government will argue two cases. First, they will argue how academic freedom can be under attack now if it has been sustained in Britain so far. I would reply to that argument in the same way that I replied to the hon. Member for Elmet. It is threatened by the instruments in the Bill in the hands of the Secretary of State, including the power of centralisation, the ability to instal placemen in the UFC and the potential dangers in that. It is also threatened as a result of the Government's actions in the past over civil liberties.
We are also aware that the Government have admitted that, because of the cuts and the restructuring to which the Secretary of State referred earlier, there will be a loss of 5,000 academics in the UFC and PCFC sectors. Indeed, Government documents confirm that. We believe that that cut is unnecessary and is against the best interests of the nation. However, we want to be certain that, when the restructuring occurs, it takes place on the ground of restructuring alone, and not for any more sinister motive. That is the first case that the Government will make, and it does not stand up to examination.
The second case that the Government will no doubt make is that the amendment is impossible to draft, would create a charter for lawyers—a charter of contention—and would be tested only in interminable issues of judiciary review. I find that a strange argument from the Government, who have used the ultimate back-stop of judicial review as a reason for being able to legislate so frequently, not by primary legislation, but by secondary legislation. They have always argued that the citizen of the nation need not worry, as he will have access to the courts. Here we see a different case. When access to the courts is against the Government's wishes, they argue that judicial review is unnecessary.
A more powerful case, however, is that it is impossible for the Government to argue that they cannot find the form of words to describe and define academic freedom if they have already done it in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in regard to freedom of speech. When we drafted the amendment, we did not seek to provide a definition; we sought to parallel precisely what the Government did in the 1986 Act. We merely said that one of the duties of the commissioners would be to ensure the maintenance of academic freedom. That does not require any definition that is challengeable in the courts. It merely lays on them, as a duty, actions that they consider necessary in respect of the conditions at any given university to ensure that academic freedom continues. Surely the Government must be able to concede that. Surely they would appear grubby and partial if, having been able to find the words to protect freedom of speech for Conservative politicians, they could not find the words to protect freedom for the academics of our nation.
I do not consider this a perfect solution; I wish to go much further. It is, however, the minimalist solution, and I hope that the Government will be able to accede to it tonight. It at least provides some form of barrier.
Finally, let me deal with what I regard as the threats. I do not think that we can take lightly threats to our basic

liberties. We have seen those threats develop in this nation since the Government came to power and, against the background of that erosion of our civil liberties, I regard this as a matter of prime and fundamental importance.
We must remember that this is the Government who have found the stomach to get rid of a whole tier of local government and to abolish elections in the process, to tamper with our jury system, to begin to limit our rights to protest, and to use the police, in a fashion, to bully the BBC—which I find entirely reprehensible. This is the Government who have taken away the right of GCHQ employees to belong to trade unions, and have found the will and the power to remove from 400,000 teachers the right to negotiate their own pay and conditions. Added together, that does not amount to a series of capricious acts by a Government who do not know better; it amounts to a sustained attack on the whole network of our civil liberties. In that context, the issue of academic freedom is of more than passing interest to academics.
The amendment demands the upholding of that most ancient right — the freedom of academics to inquire according to the curiosity of their minds, rather than the constraints of Government, and to speak the truth according to what they believe it to be, rather than to what is acceptable to the Government. Such freedoms—inalienable and ancient—should be enshrined in statute.
I hope that the Government will see the thrust of our argument. The amendment offers no threat to them, but it will offer reassurance to many others.

Mr. Straw: I commend the speech by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his efforts in pursuing this matter. Our views differ in one crucial respect, but I live in hope that we can persuade him to come our way, not least because of a statement by the Secretary of State during the small hours of one of our debates late in the Committee stage.
Three blocks of amendments fall to be discussed. Amendment Nos. 450, 146, 446, 370, 380 and 381 are all concerned with writing academic freedom into the Bill. Amendment No. 417 proposes to prevent the redundancy of staff where a more junior person would be put in to perform the same job. Amendment No. 418 proposes that, where someone is made redundant, reasonable steps should be taken to find him or her suitable alternative employment. Amendments Nos. 415 and 416 are concerned with the operative date of 20 November 1987 and its effect on the ending of tenure. It proposes that that should operate only in respect of first appointments or first contracts established after 20 November, and that reorganisations by a university or college should not have an effect on removing the tenure of someone who would otherwise have it.
There is, I believe, wide agreement that universities play a central part in the sustenance of democratic and advanced society. They do that not least by their willingness and ability to pursue inquiry, however uncomfortable the conclusions, and however much those conclusions may challenge received wisdom or vested interest.
8.15 pm
That pursuit of the central role of the university can take place only in a climate of academic freedom—supported, in our view, by security of employment. Let me say to the hon. Member for Yeovil that, while it is true we discussed this in Committee—that academic tenure


exists legally in some universities, but not in others, and does not exist in polytechnics, the other truth associated with that is that the legal existence of tenure in some universities has created a norm, a standard, by which every member of the universities and polytechnics has behaved. It is odd for Conservatives, especially today's Conservatives, to challenge the idea of the force of a moral climate. That is what they claim their whole philosophy to be about.

Mr. Batiste: Is it not a consequence of what the hon. Gentleman has just described that so many academics are now on short-term contracts?

Mr. Straw: No. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about that. As any university manager will tell the hon. Gentleman, that is a consequence of a shortage of funding and uncertainty about funding in the years ahead. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that there were more short-term contracts in universities with tenure than in those without it. I suggest to him that any statistician trying to find a correlation between those two factors would be hard put to find any close relationship. The truth is that, both in universities with tenure and those without, the number of short-term contracts has shot up because of uncertainties and cuts in funding.
Security of employment is critical. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned the challenges to academic freedom in Eastern Europe and South Africa, and, during the McCarthyite period, in America—within the lifetime of most hon. Members. In Berkeley, California, academics were told that if they did not sign a pledge not to associate with Communists they would lose their jobs. There could be no clearer indication of the association between academic freedom and security of employment.
Interestingly, all serious universities in America regard tenure as of great importance. It is true that they generally arrange for tenure to take place later than it is often—typically—gained by academics in this country. If that were the only argument between us and the Secretary of State, I would tell him that I felt that there was a good case for universalising tenure, but ensuring that academics could obtain it only later in their careers. The right hon. Gentleman should note that, in the free-market country of America, tenure is regarded as central to the pursuit of academic freedom.

Dr. Hampson: Although I have never gone along with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to re-establish tenure across the board, I have, as he knows, told my right hon. Friend many times that there could well be a case for giving an institution the right to accord tenure, not across the board, but in exceptional circumstances. It has come to my attention that the London School of Economics has failed to recruit a very distinguished professor from Australia, who had been expected to arrive, but who has now withdrawn simply because it is no longer possible for the LSE to offer him tenure. It is a free market indeed.

Mr. Straw: I was coming to that point. The Secretary of State justifies the abolition of tenure on the ground that it will lead to greater flexibility in the reorganisation—not to say cuts—that he seeks in the university world. He said:
It is important for all universities to have the flexibility that polytechnics and some universities enjoy to use their resources and facilities as they think fit. Tenure restricts that freedom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1768.]

The experience in universities that are seeking to reorganise is that abolition of tenure is restricting their ability to reorganise. There is a strange paradox.
The Secretary of State should make the inquiries that some of us have made into the problems associated with reorganising the earth sciences. There may be a strong case for such a reorganisation. Is the Secretary of State aware — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is being given the answer by the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: He is having a general chat.

Mr. Straw: He probably needs one. Is the Secretary of State aware that those who organise earth sciences find that academics with tenure are asking, "Why should we move to jobs elsewhere which lack tenure?" There is no better example of the abolition of tenure reducing the flexibility to reorganise rather than increasing it.
Abolition of tenure not only makes university management inflexible and more difficult to organise, but will lead to mediocrity among candidates for posts and discourage people from moving towards high levels. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, most disciplines, but especially science, are international. There is an international market in those disciplines.
Britain has always suffered because it does not offer comparable salaries to America and many other places. Nevertheless, in the past people have been willing to come here because of the climate of opinion. Now, not only do people not get the salaries paid in the United States, Australia or elsewhere, but they will not have any academic freedom. That is shown by the report in The Independent, which referred to Professor Christopher Hood, a leading professor of government and public administration at the University of Sydney. He had been appointed to the chair of public administration and public policy from next March, but his appointment was made six days after the day on which, retrospectively under this legislation, tenure was to be abolished. He has decided to abandon that appointment because the Government are denying tenure to university lecturers.
The Independent article said:
The heads of geology, chemistry and physics in the universities also told Kenneth Baker, the Secretary of State for Education, that his proposals, which mean that promoted lecturers will lose tenure, will prevent transfers and restructuring of their subjects.
The Secretary of State obviously treats the erosion of academic freedom lightly. I hope that he will say what answer he intends to give those senior academics who have raised these deep concerns with him. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to offer a view now, I shall be happy, as ever, to give way.
Last week I spoke to one vice-chancellor who previously had supported the abolition of tenure, hut who said that he was shocked that one of the first questions put by candidates for senior academic posts was how their tenure could be guaranteed, given that it would be abolished by this legislation. I was told that many candidates for professional posts now seek contracts for a term of years because that is the only way in which they can envisage guaranteeing security of employment.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of the abolition of tenure, important though that is, since it provides the classical protection of academic freedom? Sadly, the Government have


introduced a Bill the notes on clauses to which specifically say that the intention is to make it possible to replace seniors with juniors if they are cheaper. No wonder everyone wants tenure.

Mr. Straw: That is right. The hon. Gentleman indicated his assent by a nod to amendment No. 417, to which he appended his name with ours. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he is willing to accept this point.

Mr. Rowe: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and some of his points hold water. I believe from my experience and the experience of many others that in a large number of university departments senior staff have become very idle and, if they have not become idle, they have become extremely dull. They are kept in post because they have tenure and there is no easy way of easing them out. Such a department becomes extremely difficult to run. In times of economic hardship it becomes extremely difficult to attract new young blood into those departments.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point, despite the fact that he is wearing the tie of a technical college near Slough, as we heard earlier. There is a price to be paid for tenure. Occasionally—much less often than the hon. Gentleman suggests—people who might otherwise be sacked are not sacked, not because they have views with which others disagree, but for other reasons. No one suggests that gross idleness or gross incompetence should be overlooked by university managers.
In America people have managed realistically to bolster tenure by a process of academic assessment of staff which is more systematic than the process in this country. Such an approach must come here. It is one of the measures that need to be considered alongside academic tenure. [Interruption.] I have been told that I need to be careful.

Mr. Rhodes James: A one-year contract?

Mr. Straw: Of course not. I support the idea of tenure in America where, none the less, there is some accountability of staff. I was in favour of that 20 years ago when I was wearing a different hat, and I am in favour of it now. We do not argue for state pensions for people who are incompetent or idle. We argue for protection for serious academics to enable them to pursue their lines of inquiry, thought and research without feeling the threat of intimidation by outside forces, including those of the Government.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State say that they want to protect academic freedom. In answer to a parliamentary question on 20 November 1987 the Under-Secretary of State said :
We have recently affirmed … that academic staff should have freedom within the law"—
note "within the law"—
to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institutions … The Government therefore consider it more appropriate for the requirements of academic freedom to be taken into account by the university commissioners, in consultation with individual universities and colleges, when statutes are amended to provide appropriately for the definition of good

cause for dismissal and for arrangements for appeals against dismissal."—[Official Report, 20 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 676–77]
Those words have been repeated by the Secretary of State.
Despite the protestations of the Secretary of State that he is in favour of academic freedom, and since I have listened carefully to the debates in Committee and noted that there is little chance of amendment No. 450 being accepted, we question the Government's real intentions. If they are willing the end, they are certainly failing to will the means. Many of the amendments in this group simply ensure that enshrined in the law is the Government's commitment that the requirements of academic freedom should be taken into account by the university commissioners, in consultation with universities and colleges, when statutes are amended.
Why has the Secretary of State consistently, in Committee and now, refused to accept these amendments, which will write that into law? The only half decent explanation of which I can think is that this is some elaborate tactic whereby the right hon. Gentleman wants to refuse here in order to concede in the other place. If that is the tactic, the other place will certainly see through it as rapidly as we have.

Mr. Ashdown: I am fascinated by that quotation which I had not picked up. Those words are repeated precisely in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which refers to
freedom of speech within the law".

Mr. Straw: I do not understand why the Secretary of State refuses to do, not what we said he would do, but what he said he would do. No wonder his good faith is challenged when, on the day the Bill was published, in answer to a planted question he said one thing, but six months later he has refused to do what he said. The Secretary of State says that it is difficult to put the concept of academic freedom in the Bill because it is a difficult concept to take before the courts, but he has already written into the Bill that the concepts of fairness and justice shall be taken into account by the courts. In one of his memorable and entertaining speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that there were no more difficult concepts to take before the courts than justice and fairness.
The real issue is why the Secretary of State has refused to write academic freedom into the Bill. He gave the game away on 25 February, during a long debate about academic freedom and tenure, when he said:
I say to the Committee what I have said to the vice-chancellors … that they must face the question of a general declaration … of academic freedom not being anything more than declaratory legislation. If they wanted something more specific, they would be reintroducing a form of tenure by another name.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: That is what we want.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State says, "That is what we want." It is also what the Secretary of State acknowledges to be the reality, which is that he cannot have academic freedom unless he has tenure. He says that he wants academic freedom. By what other means can he secure tenure? He admitted to the Committee that tenure and academic freedom went together. That is the reality. He cannot have one without the other, and he had better have a better explanation tonight than he had in Committee.
8.30 pm
We are talking about statements that the Secretary of State has made but has so far failed to carry out. On 25 February he gave the undertaking:
It is the Government's firm intention that every academic dismissed other than for 'good cause' should receive compensation. I shall come back on Report and, I hope, satisfy the hon. Gentleman." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J. 25 February 1988; c. 1768–73.]
We look forward to being directed to the amendments that will satisfy that undertaking. Perhaps I have missed something, in which case I would be happy to be reassured.
We also want to know where the money is. There is no point in providing words, even in the Bill, for compensation for every academic dismissed other than for good cause unless the Government cough up the money. They are coughing up money for this year and next year for reorganisation, but this demand will continue. We must have an undertaking that not only will this be written into the Bill but that the Secretary of State is willing to back it with cash.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: At the end of the previous debate, when the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber—I make no criticism of him for that — I replied on that point to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and my reply will be in Hansard tomorrow. The gist of my reply was that it is more complicated than we thought, but I am looking at it.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the fact that he takes account of the need of Opposition spokesmen to eat occasionally. That is why I was absent for his speech. The Secretary of State now seems to have dived under the table—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: To see if the Prime Minister is there.

Mr. Straw: I assume that the complexities are gaining the agreement of the Treasury.
If the Secretary of State does not believe that academic freedom and tenure are connected, he should contemplate his own position, because his freedom of manoeuvre is directly related to whether he has security of tenure. He has to put up with the diktat of the Prime Minister precisely because he has no tenure. If he had tenure he would have freedom, and he ought to bear that in mind.

Mr. Hawkins: In the previous debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clairvoyant in referring to me as having raised the problem that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was discussing—the problem of compensation for university staff made redundant. I had not raised that point. However, as the relevant amendments are now being discussed, I shall raise the matter briefly.
In his reply, my right hon. Friend said that he had not been able to find any cases of senior staff being replaced by juniors. That is because the Bill has not been passed. He cannot find cases of seniors being fired and replaced by juniors merely because juniors are cheaper, because at the moment staff have tenure. The Bill introduces the provision allowing seniors to be replaced by juniors if it is cheaper. That is in the Bill. Of course it is cheaper. The Government imposed a pay scale which rewards age and experience and makes it absolutely certain that it is cheaper to replace seniors with juniors.
I can think of no more harmful measure in any Bill that I have seen since I have been a Member of Parliament or

read about before I came to the House to which I object more strongly than the idea that people in universities should be fired not because they are not doing their jobs well, but simply because it is cheaper to employ someone younger. Since we have failed in Committee to shill that part of the Bill, I hope very much that those in the other place will put right this appalling provision in the Bill.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend, on an amendment that I tabled, gave me a firm undertaking—the same undertaking as he gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—that if we must have the clause which provides that seniors may be fired and replaced by juniors, he would guarantee a voluntary, generous redundancy scheme, which he would bring to the House on Report, that would survive his term of office. It may be difficult for him to do that on Report. In my view, it is not difficult; it simply means writing it into the Bill. However, if we cannot do that on Report, let us make sure that it is done in another place.
If we are to replace senior people before they have made their major contributions to academic life, let me point out that Marie Curie, Keynes, Milton Friedman and Alexander Fleming did not make their major contributions to academic life until they were in their forties and fifties, and Milton Friedman not until his sixties. Of course, under the provisions of the Bill he would have been fired and replaced by someone cheaper.
For that reason I commend to my right hon. Friend amendment No. 370 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It does not ask the Secretary of State to define academic freedom, which I fully accept he does not want to do, on the face of the Bill. I accept the difficulties that would impose. Amendment No. 370 does not ask that academic freedom should be defined on the face of the Bill; it requires that the principle of academic freedom should be borne in mind when rewriting the statutes of universities.
I put it to my right hon. Friend, who will not like what I have said about seniors and juniors—that is a genuine difference of opinion—to fulfil his undertaking and to have academic freedom but not to define it on the face of the Bill. We have made a genuine attempt to meet the undertaking that he gave in a speech to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 30 October, when he said:
I believe that university statutes should be such as to give academic staff the assurance that they will be able responsibly to exercise academic freedom, and I shall seek to ensure that the Commissioners will approach their task with that in mind.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that amendment No. 370 tries to achieve precisely that aim. For that reason, I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. My fear is that if that is not done academic freedom will be seen to be an issue—which it has not been during my lifetime—it will be seen to be questioned and it will be seen to be threatened.
I was in university at the time of the teaching cuts. I had tenure, but none of us checked whether we had tenure. It was not an issue. It turned out that only about half of the academics had tenure, but we did not know that. We lived in a society that we thought was civilised. We thought that it was appreciative of freedom of choice, of freedom to speak one's mind, of freedom to write what one wished and to think as one wished. It is regrettable that those who


went through the small print when the Bill was drafted were civil servants in the Department of Education and Science.
I should hate this Government to be blamed for destroying what should be an integral part of any civilised society and of the policies of any party that values freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the written word. The defence of freedom under the law may be a difficult task for my right hon. Friend, but it is something that we should all surely wish to achieve.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome the changes that the Secretary of State has made to limit his powers over the Universities Funding Council. Whether he calls them concessions or clarifications is of no importance. What is important is the substance of his concessions. The time has now come for the Secretary of State further to clarify academic freedom.
In Committee I was the fortunate beneficiary of what the Secretary of State put to me as the Oxford, East question, which was whether the polytechnic lecturers on one side of Magdalen bridge enjoy some benefits of academic freedom while not having tenure because dons on the other side of Magdalen bridge enjoy tenure. The Secretary of State put it forward as the Oxford, East question, by analogy with the West Lothian question which was unanswerable. But the Oxford, East question is answerable. We answered it. The answer is that the academic freedom of polytechnic lecturers has been safeguarded by tenure in universities through the creation of a climate of freedom. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) referred to his own experience of that climate of freedom. Sadly, unfortunately and dangerously that climate of freedom is now under threat because of the impending staff cuts. The UGC letter referred to 5,000 staff who will have to go in the next three years. Academic freedom is also under threat from authoritarian developments because of the way in which the Government conduct their business. I cite as an example the conditions that the Department of Health and Social Security is placing on research contracts. It retains the right to decide whether research work should be published. Presumably that depends on whether it is politically convenient to publish it. Academic freedom is also under threat because of the increase in the amount of funds that may be required from outside sources.
I do not dispute plurality of funding. That is good. However, we can all think of examples where dependence on particular sources of private funds puts academic freedom at risk. Cases were reported this week in The Guardian. Dr. Denis MacEoin was removed from the university of Newcastle's department of religious studies, where there was the fear of indefensible pressure from outside funding bodies. Another case at the university of Newcastle was that of a professorial fellowship being restricted to candidates with "a clear Christian commitment." The hon. Member for High Peak referred to a hypothetical case in Standing Committee in which Eli Lilly sponsored research at a university that happened separately to employ an academic who was conducting research into the side effects of Opren. In such a case there must be conflicts of interest, and pressure could well be brought to bear on such an institution to limit the scope or cease the funding of that academic's work.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has provided further instances of academics undertaking research who could find that they are vulnerable. If somebody is conducting research into the relationship between leukaemia and nuclear generation or nuclear waste storage plants, that could be embarrassing to the Government. There is also the example of Dr. Cyril Smith at Salford university who is researching the effect of electro-magnetic fields, such as those produced by pylon cables, and their effect on people's health. That is a very live issue, and one can see the dangers. Another example is that of Dr. Harold Hillman who is working at Surrey university on cell structure and his findings about the distortion of cell structure by electro-microscopy. His work challenges fundamentally the work of many people whose professional reputation depends on the use of that particular technique. Such an individual might be seen to be a threat to the standing of the institution, whose funding would consequently be at risk.
8.45 pm
One could cite many other examples. Ministers may argue that there are few such cases and that only a few individuals are concerned, but the fewer people who are involved the more important it is. If only a few people challenge the orthodox and conventional wisdom of the age, they are under more pressure and they are at greater risk. Therefore, it is important that they should be protected effectively.
Ministers have deployed a range of arguments against the inclusion of a definition to protect academic freedom, but none of them stands up to examination. Ministers have argued that such a definition is unnecessary because of the employment protection legislation. However, dismissal for good cause under that legislation could include the expression of views that are known to be embarrassing to an employer. If the Secretary of State says that the courts can use the legislation in such a way as to protect academic freedom, they will have to rely on the form of words that he says it is impossible to include in the Bill.
Ministers have argued that it is impossible to define academic freedom, but I understand that the Secretary of State subscribes to the view expressed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that it is
the freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
That is a perfectly good definition. The argument that it cannot stand up in law is utterly unconvincing, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, precisely because the 1986 Act contains a definition of freedom of speech that is no less nebulous. Indeed, the Bill contains other concepts, such as fairness, to which the Secretary of State must have regard, that are no more closely defined.
The Government have argued—here we are closer to their real reason for being reluctant to provide protection for academic freedom in the Bill — that statutory protection for academic freedom would impede the managerial flexibility that they wish should exist in universities. That is the real reason for their reluctance. We cannot afford to cast aside such an important principle as academic freedom and lay it on the altar of managerial expediency.
The Secretary of State made in Committee what I regarded as extraordinary and dangerous statements. He referred to the hypothetical example given by the Under-Secretary of State of a member of a theological college or faculty who had lost his faith and no longer wanted to teach the basic tenets of Christianity, and asked:
In such a case, if the faculty and vice-chancellor tried to dismiss him, should there be provision in the Bill to allow him to remain in the faculty because his academic freedom would otherwise be inhibited?
The Secretary of State referred to a second example—that of the biologist who no longer believed in evolution. He asked:
Should he be allowed to demand to stay in the faculty, teaching in the name of biology, with time allotted to him to teach, if he expressed views that were completely contrary to those of his colleagues?
The Secretary of State said that that would be good ground not to reinstate him. I subsequently challenged him to withdraw, and pointed out:
His hypothesis is very dangerous to basic academic freedom." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1773.]
The Secretary of State said, "I do not agree." We demand a clear answer from the Secretary of State : will he or will he not accept that it is essential and integral to any meaningful concept of academic freedom that it would be wrong to dismiss someone because his views were inimical to his colleagues' views or to refuse to reinstate him for that reason?

Mr. Raison: I have been following the argument with interest. But surely it is difficult to make the distinction between someone expressing independent views — something that we want to preserve—and someone who goes round the bend and starts talking nonsense so that his competence as a lecturer is affected. How would the hon. Gentleman tackle the latter problem?

Mr. Smith: There are two answers to that. A few eccentrics and lunatics at our universities may well be a price worth paying for academic freedom. Indeed, we have paid it down the centuries. The second, slightly more serious, answer is to be found in the distinction made by the Under-Secretary of State between what he called "strict tenure"—the idea that in no circumstances could one remove someone from his position, which finds few defenders in the House—and the idea of tenure simply as security of employment for a person undertaking his basic teaching responsibilities. I again use the example of the teacher at the theological college who ceases to be a committed Christian. Surely he should be judged on his ability to teach religion and to undertake useful research rather than on his beliefs or statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "How would the hon. Gentleman deal with it?"] It is clear that a court would need to decide, given the statutory protection that the individual would have through the insertion of such a clause in the Bill, whether in the circumstance that prevailed he had been dismissed for his views or because of his incompetence as a teacher. At least the individual would have the protection and security of knowing that there was some statutory safeguard for his position.
What the universities and polytechnics and all those committed to genuine free academic inquiry will be interested in in the reply of the Secretary of State will be not so much the Oxford, East question but the Oxford, East answer. The Oxford, East answer is that statutory

protection for academic freedom should be written into the Bill. Let the Secretary of State have the grace to concede that we—I include some Conservative Members — have won this argument and to accept that real protection for academic freedom must be written into the Bill.

Mr. Rowe: I am wholly committed to the proposition of academic freedom. If, as was suggested just now, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that somebody who holds views inimical to the views of his colleagues thereby puts himself in a position in which he should be forced to resign, I regard it as monstrous. But I am sure that my right hon. Friend, for whose judgment I have great respect, cannot really have meant that.
Having said that, the picture that is being painted of the academic community is fanciful to say the least. It is fanciful in both directions. Is my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), for whom I have a high regard, seriously suggesting that universities in this country are composed of people of so little academic perspicacity and scruple that, confronted with an Alexander Fleming — someone of manifest academic superiority—they would manoeuvre to get rid of the person bringing lustre to their university and to replace him with someone about whom they knew nothing except that he was cheaper? If so, he is demeaning the quality and standards of the academic community to an extent that I find horrifying.

Mr. Hawkins: There have been numerous people whose ability was not recognised early in academic life and whose achievements came later. Many people have been regarded as highly controversial early in their academic life, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was regarded as controversial in this place. His merits were recognised later. The same happens in academic life; it is no different.

Mr. Rowe: Clearly, one reeds to try to protect the person who is controversial, but I do not feel that that is necessarily something that has to be written into statute. If the academic community itself is incapable of protecting colleagues whom it finds controversial, there is something more rotten in the state of academe than I believed.
The opposite argument is also true to some extent. Anyone who has worked in the academic community knows perfectly well that at every stage pressures are put on individuals which are very difficult to protect against in law and which are very often unscrupulous and disgraceful. When I was teaching in a university, a large number of university departments would not allow Eysenck to come and talk about his highly controversial views on psychological testing—in clear breach, it seems to me, of the whole principle of academic freedom. It also applies to the selection of new colleagues to take the place of someone who is retiring, in which the judgment often seems to be made on grounds very different from proper grounds of academic excellence. Such selections seem to be made on all sorts of other disgraceful grounds. However, I do not believe that a definition in law will necessarily save us.

Dr. Hampson: Surely it is not a matter of deciding one side of the equation. The concern that some of us have is with the other side of the coin. Our worry is that all the disgraceful pressures, as my hon. Friend describes them,


could be a reason for dismissing someone, and they do not have to be stated if all that the university administration has to do is to say, "We want to remove an older person who is expensive and replace him with a junior person who is cheap." They do not have to give reasons of disgraceful pressure; they simply have to say that they want a cheaper person.

Mr. Rowe: I am electrified by the proposition that that is a ground for getting rid of any academic. That is disgraceful. However, one gets rid of that by removing it from the Bill and not by writing in a whole lot of other shibboleths which, if they are not carefully defined—it is not easy to define them—will have the effect about which I have spoken before. They would freeze a large number of departments, because it is perfectly fair that for every senior academic whose excellence was not recognised until he became senior, there are many other academics who, as they get older, become more stupid and dull. The inability of a university to remove such people from their posts freezes those departments in a state of mediocrity that I find distressing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech or is simply giving way.

Mr. Rowe: I have finished.

9 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is with some trepidation that I rise, particularly since the majority of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate had the privilege of serving on the Committee of the Bill. I attempted to follow the Committee proceedings by reading the documents from it. However, the nuances that emerge in Committee are never recorded quite as effectively in the written word as one would hope.
I wish to speak to amendment No. 146 and to support the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 146 is a simple and straightforward amendment and reflects the genuine concern felt in many parts of the House about the issue of academic freedom. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has supported the amendment without my request.
When anyone asks us to define what is meant by academic freedom, we immediately run into problems. I encountered such problems earlier today when I was asked directly by one of the radio stations in Scotland what I meant by academic freedom. After 10 minutes of informal chat with the reporter, we eventually agreed on a format that he thought might be comprehensible to the listeners. I do not wish to denigrate the people who may listen, but it is a difficult concept to define. That is part of the difficulty we are facing tonight.
In my attempts to define academic freedom, I have always said that I believe it to be the right of academics to speak and research objectively in whichever discipline they may be an expert. I believe that we have to find a form of words to write that into the legislation. There are many genuine fears within our universities that the Bill, as it stands, will deny that academic freedom, however vague we may think the concept is.
I do not believe that the people who talk to us as Members of Parliament are scaremongers. I cannot think

of any group less likely to scaremonger than the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Yet that committee has written to hon. Members to draw their attention to various amendments tabled at the end of last week on the issue of academic freedom. The letter said:
By academic freedom—as we have repeatedly said—we do not mean job protection for life, we mean freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
Surely that sums up a responsible attitude within our universities and we should take account of that.
The CVCP is concerned that this Bill goes against what was recommended by the Croham report. Indeed, just two nights ago we had a debate in the Scottish context on part of the problems that we see as restricting academic freedom or restricting the freedom of our universities. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, but part of the problem is the issue of the centralisation of funding. That is part of the denying of academic freedom because we may find ourselves with centralised diktats on research telling us which departments can survive, which can expand, which will have to go, which subject areas are popular and which are not. That goes against the whole concept of education as we understand it.
I should like to touch briefly on the issue of tenure. Part of that issue centres on the restructuring within our universities. Perhaps within Scotland we are much more conscious of what is happening in the restructuring of universities because of what has been happening at Aberdeen university, which could lose six or seven departments, and Dundee university, where departments are under threat.
It might be useful for hon. Members to hear details of a letter which was sent to the Secretary of State from the department of modern languages at Dundee, which is to be closed with effect from 1992. The letter relates the problems which were faced by lecturers in that department who were seeking relocation in preparation for the closure. I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores of the department's being closed. I would obviously argue against that, as I would argue against the closure of departments at Aberdeen university.
Anyway, being realistic people, the lecturers in the department decided to go ahead and look for relocation. They turned to the university of Exeter, and Dr. Kearns, the senior lecturer in French and the Leverhulme research scholar, wrote as follows:
Relocation negotiations between the two universities were well advanced when it emerged that as a result of the Education Reform Bill we would be subject to considerably less favourable terms and conditions of appointment than we have at the moment. It seems to us grossly unjust that the very members of staff who are prepared to contribute to the rationalisation process which you"—
meaning the Secretary of State—
have initiated should be penalised in this way.
That is a view that I would endorse. The letter goes on to say that this whole process will lead to immobilism within our academic system, and surely we do not wish to see immobilism within our universities.
We therefore have a responsibility to ensure that the staff of our universities are safeguarded, that the standards which they have striven to attain are not in any way diminished, and that they are given the opportunity to maintain their commitment to the university system. It seems to me very strange that staff can be faced with the


possibility of having an increment to their salary, but may at the same time lose security of tenure. That is not something that most people in working life would consider an incentive.
There are many issues surrounding these amendments for which the Secretary of State has a direct responsibility to answer to the House. We cannot treat lightly the issue of academic freedom. It is surely something that we can write into the Bill in a simple and straightforward way to relieve the genuine concern of our academics. I wish to see these people continuing to contribute to the development of society, the economy and all that we hold dear. I think that the Secretary of State, being an honourable gentleman, must respect that. I trust that at the end of this debate we shall hear a commitment from him to write in something that will guarantee that principle of academic freedom which we hold so dear.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not want to enter into the Oxford, East question, as I think it is called, or into the question of tenure, because it seems to me that that has gone. Whether that is a good idea, I do not know. I only hope that my right hon. Friend is right about it, and I express no view as to whether my hope is well founded.
What seems to me to be very much the point is that the Government are the aggressor in these matters. It is the Government who are demanding that all universities should write into their statutes provisions making it easier for them to dismiss academic staff. So it is the Government who are changing the landscape, cutting down the trees, levelling the hedges and getting rid of historic buildings. The Government appear to be set on what many may think is a slight act of vandalism. If it is not to be an act of vandalism, they must be very sure that they are replacing what they are knocking down with something that is at least as good. That is their clear duty.
Why the Government have this obsession with dismissing academics I do not understand. Perhaps if I had read all the proceedings of the Committee I might be more au fait. I would have hoped that our universities would be expanded, not cut down. But we are basing our discussion on the proposition that academics have to be dismissed and on how it is to be done. The Government are responsible for the position, and it is the Government's duty, and therefore my right hon. Friend's duty, to see that the present system is replaced by something as good, if not better.
As I said, I did not have the chance or the pleasure of listening to all the speeches made in Committee on this matter, but I have read them in Hansard. My right hon. and hon. Friends are men of great intellectual gifts, but the interesting thing is that on this subject of academic freedom they were able to produce arguments which, with the greatest respect, one can describe only as wafer-thin. That suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the point of view that they are being made to argue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), said in Committee:
The Sloman report said that the freedom to teach is qualified in a variety of ways.
I do not think that we need the Sloman report to tell us that. Even Back-Bench Members realise that, let alone academics. My hon. Friend went on to say:
Academic freedom is not an entitlement to resources … academic freedom is subject to available resources."—

[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 23 February 1988; c. 1707–08.]
We could probably all have thought of that for ourselves, without the advantage of the Sloman committee.
The argument is made that academic freedom is such a recondite concept that no judge would be able to understand it, but, by their very nature, all freedoms are qualified. That does not apply only to academic freedom—there is not a single freedom under the sun that is not qualified.
I cannot believe that that is a serious objection to writing it into the Bill, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who tabled amendment No. 370, to which I had the honour to put my name, is going out of his way to meet the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, unless there is some new argument that none of us knows about, the case for doing as my hon. Friend suggests is absolutely overwhelming.
Whatever else one may say about universities, they contain a lot of very clever people. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) went into some rather disagreeable fantasies about people in universities getting stupider and stupider and said that academic freedom was a shibboleth. I do not think that that is right, nor do I believe that there are stupid men in universities. I certainly have not come across any. Indeed, I should be very surprised if other people have come across any. However, a number of very clever men are distinctly worried about what the Government are proposing. I gather that the Government are proposing several concessions, but, so far as I can see, they have not moved a muscle on this key point.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, with all his acumen and intellectual resources, will see his way to making some clear concessions and a clear pledge on that point this evening, otherwise the Government will be lumbered with the public having the clear idea that the Government are not interested in academic freedom.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: During the Bill's Committee stage I made two speeches about academic freedom which between them lasted an hour. I shall not go over anything that I said then, especially because—it is nice to be able to live vicariously through the brilliance of others —my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spelt out the general principles so well, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is sitting behind me. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on that.
The question of academic freedom is slightly more complicated than the Minister sometimes says. It can be about the relationship between the Government and the universities. It can be about the relationship between the individual and the universities. But the Minister has never made any admission of the fact that it can be about the relationship between the Government and the university and the individual. Sometimes that can be mediated in a strange fashion, through the operation of something like a research council.
In this debate I want to talk about academic freedom as regards the relationship between the Government and the Universities Funding Council. With great respect, that issue was bypassed in the congratulatory unction of our previous debate. I want to do this by one example. Let us suppose that the Bill is already law. Next Thursday is 31


March and on that day the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a major announcement. He will make it next Thursday because Parliament is about to rise for the Easter recess and Easter is a good time for burying contentious issues. Next Thursday the Secretary of State will announce that he intends to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. Some people may think that that is a quixotic and questionable thing to do to those ancient and estimable regimes. What would the Universities Funding Council do about that? Could we expect it to say anything on the matter under the Bill?
9.15 pm
We know that the council cannot dissent publicly about the announcement by the Secretary of State, because the Under-Secretary of State assured us in Committee that there could be no public dissent by either of the funding councils. That would be a resigning matter. I find it strange that the councils cannot speak out publicly and dissent from what the Government say. Can they dissent privately? Even after all the amendments that have been tabled, they still cannot dissent privately, because they do not have the statutory powers to do so.
To dissent privately, the activities about which the councils were dissenting would have to relate to activities eligible for funding. I speak as a lawyer, and activities relating to funding would not allow the Universities Funding Council to protest about legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities.
I have followed closely the way in which Ministers' minds work. On 6 April the secretary of the Universities Funding Council would write to the Secretary of State as follows:
Dear Secretary of State,
Our attention has been drawn to your proposal to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. We would very much hope that you would feel able to give us your permission to comment on the proposal.
Yours sincerely,
Secretary
Universities Funding Council".
Three weeks later, on 27 April, the secretary of the Universities Funding Council would receive a reply from Sir David Hancock, permanent secretary at the Department of Education. That letter would say:
Dear Secretary,
Thank you for your letter of 6 April, concerning the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities and the desire of the Universities Funding Council to make representations on this matter.
I am instructed by the Secretary of State to inform you that, exceptionally, he has no objection to your so doing, provided that your representations take the form of those set out in appendix A to this letter, which itself is a final draft of the letter which you will send to the Secretary of State making the appropriate representations. The Secretary of State will then reply to you in the form of a letter, a final revised copy of which is set out in appendix B to this letter.
At that stage, the matter will be deemed to have been satisfactorily disposed of. I am most grateful for your cooperation.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your humble and obedient servant, Sir David Hancock,
Permanent Secretary.
What are the two appendices to Sir David's letter? Appendix A is a final draft of a letter from the secretary

of the Universities Funding Council to the Secretary of State, which has been drafted by the Secretary of State. It is dated 3 May and says:
Dear Secretary of State,
In response to the letter that we received on 27 April from your permanent secretary, concerning your proposal to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities, we would like to make the following points.

1. We are most grateful to you for allowing us, exceptionally, to make these representations.
2. We utterly refute suggestions made in the press and on television that the Government wish to abolish Oxford university because the Hebdomadal council refused to grant the Prime Minister an honorary doctorate. We felt at the time that the decision was a bad one and have now persuaded the Hebdomadal council of the correctness of our view. By way of reparation, the Hebdomadal council has agreed that its very last act before abolition will be to confer, not one, but two honorary doctorates on the Prime Minister.
3. We are distressed that Kim Philby, one of your top mandarins, who was educated at Cambridge university, should be giving an interveiw to Phillip Knightley, which the Sunday Times is publishing. This can only further damage national security. We agree with the Prime Minister that one is either for national security or against national security. Cambridge university is against national security.
4. It is true that a recent meeting of the senate of London university discussed a forthcoming visit by the Secretary of State. We utterly deplore the cry of the emeritus professor of mathematics at that meeting, 'Not that authoritarian man again. Who wants to listen to that discredited old faggot.'
5. Oxford, Cambridge and London universities have asked us to make representations on their behalf and say that they are most grateful to you for your patience in listening to and weighing up all the arguments in this complex matter.

Yours sincerely,
Secretary, Universities Funding Council.
Finally, there is Appendix B., the final revise, a letter from the Secretary of State himself to the secretary of the Universities Funding Council dated 24 May. It says:
Dear Secretary,
Thank you for your letter of 3 May clearing up a number of misapprehensions about my proposal to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. Your understanding of the complex issues involved is indeed appreciated and speaks volumes for the wisdom and maturity of your members. That being so, I am sure that you will accept that there are no grounds on which I can reconsider the matter.
The basic problem—this is the whole purpose of the correspondence—is that we are beginning to doubt the Secretary of State's bona fides on academic freedom. He is like a man who has stepped into a bog. As he is sinking down into that bog, ultimately to die, he shouts out, "Do not worry, it will be all right on the night. Do not worry, it will be all right when we publish the Bill. Do not worry, it will be all right on Second Reading. Do not worry, it will be all right on Report. Do not worry, it will be all right in the House of Lords." Then suddenly he is dead.
It really is time that the Secretary of State did a simple thing, which is to enshrine in law one of the most important freedoms in our society, that of academic freedom, because freedom in society at large depends on it.

Dr. Hampson: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes firmly in, and is completely committed to, the principle of academic freedom. All that I and many of my hon. Friends want him


to do is to enshrine those words in statute so that the whole world can see that he and the Government stand by that principle. I deny that my right hon. Friend treats the erosion of academic freedom lightly. I do not believe that he does. Nor do I believe that his stand is one of expediency.
Let me make two points. The first concerns the narrow and practical aspects of what he is doing. There are gross inconsistencies between what is proposed in the Bill and the Government's perfectly proper policy of trying to reorganise, restructure and create mergers of university departments. If my right hon. Friend believes in doing that, he should not be doing sonic of the things that he is doing which deny the success and flexibility of his proposals.
Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two examples. In a letter sent to my right hon. Friend by the Committee of Heads of University Geoscience Departments, of which he will be aware, it is acknowledged that that whole area must be reorganised and that the heads wish to do that with the maximum flexibility. Of course, as we all know, the earth sciences review is part of that and a survey has shown that 30 per cent. of teaching staff who had previously indicated their willingness to transfer as a result of the review of this part of the academic world would reconsider that decision if they were to lose tenure as a result of moving.
What is the sense of inhibiting an essential reorganisation by insisting on a hard and fast date, as the Bill does, so that we make it possible for people to say that they will not move when it is our intention to encourage them to do so?
The heads of all the departments urge the Secretary of State to exclude from the relevant provision those staff who agree to transfer under restructuring and rationalisation arrangements as a result of the policy reviews. They stress that that is partly because it is more efficient but also on the ground of natural justice. I really would have thought, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) stressed, that a Conservative Government would stand firmly by the principle of natural justice. We constantly preach that we are the party of the individual.
Let me cite an example of a university lecturer who received a letter from a member of the university's administration confirming that he has gone through his period of probation. It says:
In the past, this confirmation would have led to the offer of a tenured appointment, however it is clear from the Education Reform Bill that any contracts offered and accepted after the 20th November 1987, within universities, will not carry tenure. This means that the contract which you received upon your appointment here will continue.
But he has not got tenure.
The interesting point in that case is that the lecturer was on probation for four years. There is an issue of natural justice for many individuals who have been caught by the Bill and put into a position where they would not otherwise have been. It is unfair and, I believe, not in the national interest, and it is simply not efficient. So a combination of fairness and a desire to become efficient and more flexible lies at the heart of the case, which I believe many Conservative Members wish to pursue.
The rest of the argument is really about public perception because, increasingly, it is evident that the public misunderstand the Government's intentions in the Bill. But, all too often, Ministers say that it is not necessary

to change the face of the Bill. I have a letter in my pocket dealing with the national curriculum. We were trying to ensure in Committee that Secretaries of State would not have control over textbooks and teaching methods. The Minister of State says in a categorical assurance that that is not possible within the framework of the Bill. But that assurance does not appear in the Bill. Therefore, in classrooms throughout the country, there is still gross misunderstanding about the degree of flexibility or rigidity that the Government seek in the national curriculum.
Here again, the issue of academic freedom is not, in my view, about the motive of the Government, which I do not question at all; it is about perception. I must raise with the Government the central issue of how far down the line one must go towards good management practice. I understand that that is what concerns the Government. It is perfectly reasonable to encourage vice-chancellors and administrators to have more nerve to take a tougher line and to be prepared to take hard decisions about hov, many people they need to employ, because that is a very costly item.
We will face these dilemmas, if the technical notes on clauses mean what they say. The notes on clauses suggest that this would enable an institution on grounds of economy to employ a junior person in a job hitherto done by a senior person. I can see that that starts off being seen as good management practice, but it is being interpreted as enabling heads of departments or university administrations to get rid of difficult people and to replace them by juniors on the grounds of economy, when the real grounds are that the man is just bloody-minded, difficult to deal with or holds difficult views —or has become a lunatic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has just said.
I will end on the solution to the dilemma. The clause provides a loophole which a Conservative Government who believe in individual freedom ought not to subscribe to. Further, I do not believe that we should get into a position of constant judical review so that each individual who is made redundant goes through all the courts to challenge it on the basis that an institution does not like his views and that it is not a matter of economy at all. I do not believe that many lecturers will have sufficient financial resources to take a case through the courts.
9.30 pm
Let us deal instead with the question of commissioners. We require certain things of the commissioners already. They must have regard to fairness and justice, although the instances I have cited as the consequence of reorganisation do not seem to fall within the realms of fairness because of the way in which the Bill is drafted. Those people are not being treated fairly, or in terms of natural justice. We require that they should be…A set of broad principles as guidelines for the commissioners must include the maintenance of academic freedom and the independence of research. If the commissioners scrutinise university statutes with that in mind, I cannot believe that the end result will be challenged through the courts. In any case, it would be a once-and-for-all challenge — a test case. And who would bring it? At that point, no individual would feel threatened, so we are talking about the union—the Association of University Teachers. I do not believe that the AUT will want to challenge the commissioners on the basis of statutes that embrace the principles of academic freedom. They would not want to


go though the costs of that process. If the commissioners do their job properly, their scrutiny of the statutes must be part of a consultative and co-operative process with university authorities and staff. So the end product should contain a broad consensus.
We are asking my right hon. Friend to acknowledge that there is deep concern in the university and academic world about this matter. The problem is one of public perception; we do not want the public to see the Government denying what is at the heart of a free society and of the modernisation of this country and its economy that the Government want. Without freedom of research we cannot stay at the forefront of knowledge and push back the frontiers that are being extended throughout the rest of the developed world.
For all these reasons, the Secretary of State must not only accept these principles but find a way of requiring the commissioners to pay heed to them when they scrutinise and draw up the universities' statutes.

Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friends, I have listened carefully for some years to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) speaking about this subject. In Committee he was sometimes courageous and withheld his vote. I have also listened to him for the past three days—from time to time — speaking about this Bill. If he speaks in that tone, is he not obliged to vote in a way that shows that he means what he says? I hope that he will put his vote where his mouth is.

Dr. Hampson: That was an unwarranted and uncalled for remark. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have seen that I shall vote for this amendment. I did not support the Government on the last amendment, so I do not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Dalyell: Good. I have got it now.
I also listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) which, when I first came to the House, would have been regarded as the norm. The reactions to it today, however, were revealing. I say to the Secretary of State that Edward Boyle and David Eccles would have accepted everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. The Secretary of State's stance is not in keeping with many of his own party traditions, which some of us find more satisfactory than these new doctrines.
What will be the Bill's effect on the brain drain? I hope that there will be some answer to my question—I gave the right hon. Gentleman's officials the information—about Christopher Hood, whom some of us knew when he was in Glasgow. That question was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The AUT document, which has been given to all of us, states:
They will use this power to amend university statutes to ensure:—that academic and related staff can be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy as well as for 'good cause' (clause 131(1)(a)); — that 'good cause' dismissal itself is made easier (clause 131(1)(b)).
The document continues :
The clause appears in the Bill despite the insistent pleas of the UGC not to frustrate delicate restructuring processes, despite the obvious injustice of retrospective legislation, and despite the danger of worsening the 'brain drain'.
It is on that that I ask the House to listen to one point. Last week 40 new fellows of the Royal Society were elected; 15 of them work abroad, at Duke university,

North Carolina, at Canberra, at Rockefeller university, New York, at Austin, Texas, at Ohio State, at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia, at Sydney, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, India, at Basel, at Cal Tech, at Madras, at Stamford school of medicine, at Adelaide and at Victoria, Canada. Ken Murray, a distinguished fellow of the Royal Society and head of the school of biochemistry at Edinburgh, is only one among a number who have pleaded with us to realise that there is a brain drain of many of the best in this country and many of the younger members of the Royal Society.
It is a question not of being elitist but of making a calculation as to what the new developments on tenure are likely to do to those whose decision is balanced anyway for economic reasons, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, whether to work in Britain or not. It may be that this tips the balance. I beg the Secretary of State to take the brain drain into account.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his clarification of his "hands off" approach towards universities. He assures us that he wants universities and departments to manage themselves without direct interference from the Government. We appreciate what he has been able to clarify. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that we may have further clarification on the role of individual members of staff.
Guarantees of individual academic freedom are difficult to define. I suppose that for most of us who have had an academic life academic freedom is rather like a belief in motherhood. Most of us believe in it, but when it comes to putting it into legislation it is difficult to define and it becomes complicated. It could interfere with the good management of the university. I accept the arguments that we heard in Committee that it might indeed complicate the life of university staff if too rigid a definition of academic freedom were to be implemented.
My experience as an academic teaching in a polytechnic may be relevant. We had no tenure but certainly we believed in the principle of academic freedom. In my position as director of research, I tried to put pressure on colleagues to carry out research which they wanted to do in the good interests of the department. Increasingly staff are on short-time contracts. That may be a good thing. Certainly it helps younger people to get jobs. Promotions are dependent upon the good will of heads of departments or deans of faculties.
Research time in polytechnics, perhaps more than in universities, is scarce, as is research money. Therefore, in the perception of staff their freedom is curtailed because of the pressure which is put upon them. The perception of members of staff is what we are talking about. As the discussion about academic freedom continues, perhaps not in this Chamber but in another place, I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider closely the concerns of academic staff, which may not be as real as the staff think. However, members of academic staff in universities and polytechnics feel strongly about the issue. If in another place the Secretary of State could arrange for more clarification, rather like the clarification on the funding


councils, it would he widely appreciated and in the longterm interests of academic freedom and the right of members of staff of universities to teach and to undertake research as they think fit.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate because it has dealt with fundamental issues. The two debates in Committee on these issues were interesting because there was common agreement there, as there has been across the Floor of the House tonight, that academic freedom—if one could define it—is a very important and precious right and an essential part of our universities.
1 want to begin by explaining why we are taking this action on academic tenure. The case must be made. By tabling the amendment, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made the clear point that he did not want to keep tenure. He said that he would welcome its being phased out. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) revealed what I believe is the official Labour party line when he said that he preferred to retain tenure. Indeed, I believe that the Labour party is on record as stating that it wants to extend tenure to the institutions that do not have it. I do not think that I have misinterpreted the Labour party view on that.
We believe that tenure produces inflexibility in the administration and organisation of universities, and that is one of the reasons why the Government believe that tenure should end. Our evidence for that is as follows. In the clinical departments in universities with tenure, 76 per cent. of new posts are on short-term contracts. The figures for non-clinical departments are similar. They are having to move away from the restrictions of tenure by appointing at least three quarters of their academics on short-term contracts. Only 55 per cent. of new appointments are short-term in universities without tenure. The non-clinical figures are 57 and 43 per cent. respectively. We believe that it is right to give the roughly 50 per cent. of universities which have tenure the flexibility possessed by other universities.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has asserted two facts, but he has not made the causal link between them. The more likely explanation is that all the universities are under severe financial pressure. The universities with tenure have had to accommodate that pressure in this way, and those without tenure have accommodated it differently. He has not supported his argument at all.

Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I have made my case. The practice has not developed recently; it has been going on for some time. With regard to the shortage of money, I must state that I have provided some £155 million in the university settlement for next year for the restructuring of universities.
Some hon. Members have said that there will be 5,000 redundancies in the universities. The report in which that figure was mentioned was very important in my discussions with the Treasury. I was able to show that unless more money was provided there could be redundancies on that scale. As a result of the £155 million that I have secured for universities, redundancies will be on a much smaller scale and many new appointments will be made. The restructuring funds specifically include new blood appointments.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady shortly, as I want to quote her in a moment.
We need flexibility, and many universities would agree with that. In the Bill we are specifically providing that the statutes of universities should do three things, and it is important that the House understands the details because this is very complicated. The statutes should, first, enable staff to be dismissed on grounds of redundancy; secondly, to make "good cause" dismissals for gross misconduct or incapability; and, thirdly, to establish an appeals procedure. We will ask commissioners to work that out. We are using that almost 19th century way of dealing with those matters at the request of the universities. —[Interruption.] The universities asked us to use the method of parliamentary commissioners. I believe that Disraeli used them in the 1870s. That is the best way to proceed, because a great deal of work is involved in changing the individual statutes and charters of universities.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State referred to the sum of £155 million. Can he give an assurance that a proportion of that will be used for Aberdeen university, which is seeking an element of transitional funding?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady will know—and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) also knows perfectly well—that one of our earlier debates covered an issue that has run through all the debates on the universities, namely, my powers over the funding councils. I have provided them with funds which they can make available. I am sure that they know about the problems of Aberdeen and are addressing them. The hon. Lady asks me to intervene in the affairs of a particular institution. I took powers earlier tonight to ensure that the holder of my office should not be in a position to do that. I can only tell the hon. Lady that the problems of Aberdeen are well known.
Let me deal next with the concept of academic freedom. When this matter was first bruited some six or nine months ago, the whole debate was about the freedom of academics to engage openly in criticism of the Government of the day. It was pitched very much in terms of freedom of expression: teachers and university professors should be perfectly free to criticise the Government, monetarism, Keynesianism or anything else. It was presented very much as a political debate. The present Government have never made any attempt to suppress the freedom of academics in that regard. That freedom is innate in our country. I have not noticed that the last few years have been characterised by an absence of criticism of the Government by academics.
That brings me to the Oxford, East question, which has nothing to do with Magdalen bridge. Roughly half our universities have tenure; the other half, and the polytechnics, have not. The Oxford, East question is this: if academic tenure is the main protection of academic freedom, how has academic freedom survived in the institutions that have not had it?

Mr. Andrew Smith: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to Oxford, East in a moment.
I pose the question in the same way as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when he was the hon. Member for West Lothian, posed the West Lothian


question. That question, at heart, could never be answered. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has answered this one, but he can have another go.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The answer to the Oxford, East question, as we have said on many occasions, is that tenure has created a climate in which even those who did not technically enjoy it took that freedom for granted. It is precisely that taking for granted of academic freedom that is challenged by the withdrawal of tenure. If tenure is withdrawn, it should be replaced by statutory protection for academic freedom.
The answer to the Oxford, East question is this : if tenure is to be removed, the Secretary of State must insert academic freedom into the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I am afraid that the answer is as thin as ever. It is preposterous to say that if three quarters of our institutions do not have academic tenure, the quarter that do somehow influence the atmosphere in the other three quarters.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.

Mr. Straw: rose

Mr. Baker: No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must save it for another night. I have given way to him once already.
The point that I am making is that, whereas the first questions on academic freedom were essentially of a general, political nature, the issue has been narrowed down to what is really at stake : the freedom of academics within the universities to follow their courses of research or other studies without fear of being victimised by other academics. Academic freedom is protecting academics from other academics.
That point is acknowledged by Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In a celebrated letter he said that what we wanted was a process and method to protect academics from "malign administrators" — administrators within the university—or from some academics ganging up against a particular academic. That is not unknown in the universities. Members of a faculty may dislike the awkward person who does not want to conform and may want to gang up on him.
We are dealing with a system of protecting academics from other academics. How does the Bill hope to do that? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that this was the Government's responsibility. He said that, because we are changing the rules of the game, we are creating a desolate landscape. Some Conservative Members think that we are creating a land of opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some?"] The great majority.
I should like to deal with the rather gloomy vision of the desolate landscape. The Bill provides a set of proceedings to deal specifically with the problem of academic freedom. How can we protect the freedom of academics such as those described by the hon. Member for Oxford, East? The example of a theological college was given in Committee from time to time. A member of a

faculty may have lost his faith but may wish to remain a member and preach to the students that he has lost his faith. A person in a biology department may conclude that Darwinism and the evolution of man are not the right explanations and that creationism was right. The question is whether he should be allowed to remain in that department and lecture. —[Interruption.] Some may say that he should. These people cannot just be dismissed as eccentrics. I am not against the retention of eccentricity in university life, but it puts tremendous pressure on universities.
In the past, people have said that academic tenure has protected such faculty members. That has been a rather feeble protection and has not operated in half our universities anyway. We seek to protect by establishing certain procedures, which I believe will be effective. There must be proper dismissal procedures. A proper committee must be set up to deal with this matter, and this committee falls short of the whole university court. At the moment, the usual arrangement is that the whole university court has to agree to the dismissal. That is too clumsy.
There should be an appeals procedure for the don, the university teacher or the professor who feels that he is victimised and that he will be dismissed because his views are unpopular. I cannot generalise as to every university, but I do not believe that this procedure is a common feature. We are ending the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction, so that the person who has gone through the procedure of dismissal and appeal can appeal, not only to an industrial tribunal against unfair dismissal, but to the courts against wrongful dismissal.
All those safeguards, which do not now exist, are substantial bulwarks to defend the academic freedom of one academic against another. The hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Oxford, East said that academic freedom was difficult to define, and therein lies the rub.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) did not say that.

Mr. Baker: I am sorry. If he did not, he should have done, because it is incontrovertibly true. It is difficult to define. We have considered ways of defining it. Our lawyers have advised us that if we include a phrase similar to the phrase in amendment No. 450 in an attempt to describe academic freedom, for the first time academic freedom will become a justiciable matter to be decided by the courts. A court may give a definition of academic freedom that widens the definition of good cause for academics and worsens their position.
That is not a pettifogging lawyer's point. I shall explain what we are proposing. Last week, together with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, I had a meeting with six vice-chancellors to discuss whether we could find a way through. It came out of that meeting that it is very difficult to find a definition of academic freedom. The arguments on both sides were rehearsed. The problem comes if one includes a definition of academic freedom and a university, for example, decides that it wants to rationalise a department and it is agreed universally between the vice-chancellor, the management of the university, and the academic staff in the faculty that one or two people have to go. If the Bill contained a broad definition of academic freedom, those people could claim that their academic freedom was threatened because their


jobs were threatened. That produces tenure by another route. That is the difficulty. The hon. Member for Blackburn agreed to that in Committee, and he agrees to it now, as he would prefer tenure to be restored by another route.
I shall tell the House that what flowed from that meeting was a letter that I have sent to Sir Mark Richmond, and I shall quote two paragraphs from it:
The conclusion which I took away from our discussion was that we have not yet found a satisfactory answer to the problem. I thought the Lord Chancellor drew out with particular clarity the difficulties we have seen with declaratory provisions of the kind you had suggested on behalf of the CVCP.
I am reading out the letter before the hon. Member for Blackburn leaks it to the press.

Mr. Straw: I have done that already.

Mr. Baker: It continues:
It is because of those difficulties that I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to try to make any amendments to the Bill at the Commons Report stage; but the Lord Chancellor and I fully acknowledge the need to continue our discussions and to explore possible alternative ways of meeting the reasonable concerns of academic staff. I should like to assure you that I am genuinely open-minded about how we shall meet those concerns. As I explained at our discussion, I believe that the addition to the Bill of a duty on the Commissioners to establish proper procedures to deal with cases of grievance and discipline as well as with dismissal should, in practice, give academics an adequate reassurance against unreasonable treatment by institutions.
In short, that is the second half of the amendment, the establishment of a grievance procedure so that a don or a university teacher, long before dismissal, if he or she is being discriminated against, should go through a proper grievance procedure. We are prepared to accept that and to bring forward an amendment in the other place to ensure that.
Should anything further be required, one possibility we noted was that of making it clear that fairness—one of the words used in the clause -- includes an essential academic freedom, but this is by no means the only possibility. The Lord Chancellor and I hope that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will he prepared to consider a variety of alternative approaches towards our agreed objectives.
I remind the House that the agreed objective is that academics should have a proper measure of reassurance that they will not be discriminated against by their institutions on account of their views. That is the object. I have tried to explain to the House tonight why we consider that the procedures we have established secure those aims. The difficulty is in providing a genuine definition. Clearly, we are prepared to consider that again. I have asked the vice-chancellors to come forward with further proposals and we shall have to see how the debate develops in the other place.

Mr. Ashdown: Those who have concern for these matters have listened to the Secretary of State with a mixture of despair and dismay, because the arguments that he has put forward are as thin as those that he used previously. There are two important factors. First, with one single exception, every speech, from both sides of the House, was in favour of the amendment. Secondly, the Minister's arguments are no more than a repeat of those that he put forward previously. His arguments do not hold water. We may take comfort only from two facts. First, the

right hon. Gentleman says that he retains an open mind on the matter, if we can believe him. Secondly, he may be maintaining a position that he will give way in the other place.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersharn (Sir I. Gilmour) described the Secretary of State's arguments as "wafer-thin." I should have described them as threadbare. For that reason, this matter should now be put to the vote. I hope that all those who hold academic freedom dear will vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 296.

Division No. 232]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Faulds, Andrew


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fearn, Ronald


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Beith, A. J.
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buckley, George J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Holland, Stuart


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clay, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
John, Brynmor


Crowther, Stan
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Doran, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Wall, Pat


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Tony Banks


Rooker, Jeff



NOES


Adley, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, John


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Evennett, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Farr, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Favell, Tony





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Gow, Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Hal


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayward, Robert
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Rattan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






Soames, Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Squire, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Ward, John


Stokes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Teddy (Send E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Trippier, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Orders 11 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 175.

Clause 174

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Amendments made: No 235, in page 154, line 15, after 'both)', insert;
and—

(b) the governing body of a designated assisted institution;'.

No. 236, in line 24, after 'both)', insert—
'(cc) the governing body of a designated assisted institution;'.

No. 237, in line 38, after 'and', insert—
'(ii) a designated assisted institution:
and in relation to'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he further considered on Monday 28 March.

Electricity Industry (Research and Development)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Michael Colvin: I wish to raise the subject of the future arrangements for research and development in the electricity industry. I am pleased to see that this Adjournment debate is being attended by more than twice the customary number of hon. Members.
I particularly welcome the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), both of whom have constituency interests in the subject and who hope to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker, later in the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, who will be replying to the debate, is happy for them to intervene and is no doubt looking forward to what they have to say.
Incidentally, I am very pleased to see the Minister of State on the Front Bench this evening to reply to this debate, first, because we do not see very much of him at the Dispatch Box, and, secondly, because the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, ray hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose job it would normally be to reply to this debate, is in the United States of America looking at the electricity industry, which I hope will give him some good ideas as to what he might do about privatisation, and particularly research and development.
The recent debate on the White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales left one in no doubt that it should not be seen as the final blueprint. Ministers have made it quite clear that they are still prepared to listen and possibly respond to constructive suggestions between now and the next Session of Parliament, when we expect to see the Bill. One good reason for that flexibility is that the White Paper is far from comprehensive. There are gaps, and to prove the point I want to raise this evening the question of one key element in this vital industry which hardly gets a mention in the White Paper. I am referring to the research and development activities of the electricity industry, and in particular the Central Electricity Generating Board.
Apart from comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on the area boards' research activities, R and D scarcely got a mention in the debate on the White Paper that took place in the House on Monday 7 March. The White Paper, in paragraph 9, attributes research and development to the Electricity Council. In point of fact, that is hardly correct. The responsibility is, in the main, delegated to the CEGB, which undertakes research on a wide range of matters concerning generation and transmission schemes. Such research is vital in gaining technological improvement in existing areas of operation, and also for future development.
R and D is part of the CEGB which, in 1986–87, turned over a total of £162 million in its three research laboratories, which employ over 2,000 people, in the five laboratories which provide direct scientific and technical support to CEGB power stations, and through R and D


contracts placed with other organisations, such as manufacturers, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the universities.
The CEGB's research and development programme is managed through its technology, planning and research division, under the executive control of a CEGB member, Mr. D. A. Davis, based at its London headquarters.
The main aims of the research and development programme are to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEGB. It does that by looking at new opportunities to improve the reliability, safety and economic performance of existing plant and by giving expert technical assistance during the introduction and commissioning of new plant. It provides technical expertise to the CEGB so that it can be a well-informed and critical buyer of plant, equipment and fuel. It looks to the future by studying and assessing longer-term developments in the generation and transmission of electricity. Lastly, it ensures that CEGB operations have the minimum effect on the natural environment.
The main research and development programme is centred on three large laboratory complexes. First, there is the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories — BNL — on the Severn estuary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It is the CEGB's main centre for nuclear and radiation research. It is the only laboratory complex within the board with a nuclear site licence, and it employs about 720 people.
There is also the Central Electricity Research Laboratories—CERL—at Leatherhead in Surrey, which employ about 750 staff. It is the major centre for environmental studies in the CEGB and a major centre for research on transmission, power system control and electrical plant.
There is also the Marchwood Engineering Laboratories—MEL—in my constituency on the west bank of the Solent. It is the major centre for research on heavy engineering projects. MEL specialises in the development of inspection and repair techniques for nuclear plant, testing of mechanical components such as valves or fuel assemblies, and research into the combustion and heat transfer processes in oil and coal-fired power station boilers. The laboratories employ about 430 people.
There are also five operational engineering division laboratories, which provide direct operational support on generation and transmission.
In Scotland, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board both undertake research, although most of it is contracted out. The SSEB employs about 50 research staff at East Kilbride. The hydro-electric board has its own small research facility which looks into the specific practical problems of fish behaviour in rivers, hydraulics, and low-cost remote control systems.
Lastly, the Electricity Council runs the Capenhurst research centre, which has a turnover of about £10 million per year, and employs 350 staff working on finding better ways of distributing and utilising electricity.
It is important to understand the research and development modus operandi of the three principal research division laboratories. They have very close contact with each other and with all branches of the

CEGB, as well as a wide range of arrangements with manufacturers—both large and small—which can be collaborative, contracting or commercial.
There is thus a significant number of unique major research facilities on which the industry is dependent. They are occasionally available for external commercial work, but are normally fully utilised on work within the CEGB. However, the relative independence of the CEGB, as currently perceived by our manufacturers, allows the laboratories to have productive relationships with those companies, and often to act as a sort of "honest broker" when co-operation between rivals is in everybody's mutual interest.
It appears that under the proposals in the White Paper there are three options for the privatisation of the technology, planning and research division and its facilities. The first is to include it in what the White Paper describes as "big G", but that could starve the other generating companies of R and D and should, therefore, be rejected.
The second is to fragment the division, but that begs the question, "Who goes where?" Berkeley might fit into "big G" because of its predominantly nuclear work, but as Marchwood does 60 per cent. nuclear and 40 per cent. fossil fuel research it would not fit happily into either "big G" or "little G". Fragmentation would lead to costly duplication, which is something which has almost been eliminated under the present organisation and which it would be wasteful and unwise to resurrect.
The third alternative is for the division to be sold off separately either as a plc with shares owned, perhaps pro-rata to turnover, by the generating and transmission companies, or as a research and development institute perhaps with charitable status, which might be based on the Electricity Council, but does not have to be, or maybe some combination of both—funded perhaps by levies on the generating and transmission companies, and supported by special interest groups and manufacturers. There might even be a Government shareholding.
I think that the third option is the one for the Government to use as the basis for their solution, because it gives the greatest chance of maintaining really long-term work, such as renewable energy research, although I accept that commercial confidentiality might be difficult to maintain.
The three laboratories already work as cost centres, so it would not be too difficult to turn them into profit centres. When I discussed privatisation with the management and workers at Marchwood recently, I found support for the third option, as it would preserve the integrity of the present division and would enable it to relate more effectively to the supply side of the industry, if privatised in the way proposed in the Government's White Paper.
It is worth noting that, when the CEGB gave evidence to the Select Committee on Energy earlier this year, officials conceded that some of their work was
difficult to justify in operational terms.
Future shareholders may look askance at any expenditure which does not appear to have an immediate pay-off. That is why it is important to suggest an organisation for the future which can continue long-term research and does not look permanently at the results and the profit and loss account for the current year.
Perhaps a British equivalent of the United States Electric Power Research Institute would be the answer. It


has been responsible for a co-operative research effort costing almost $3 billion since it was set up in 1973 and has acted as a focus for electricity and environmental research and development and long-term strategic thinking.
In conclusion, I suggest to my hon. Friend that, in deciding the right structure for research and development in the privatised electricity industry, the Government must bear in mind the quality of the professional graduates and skilled artisans in research and development, and the importance of maintaining a dynamic career structure to help recruitment and retention of personnel.
I would like to see a consultative document outlining the Department of Energy's thinking on this important subject, for discussion with and comment by all interested parties in research and development, well before the privatisation Bill is published.
At Marchwood, I was left in no doubt about the electricity workers' dedication to the needs of electricity consumers. They are pledged to keep the lights on, but, if the consumer is to be the real beneficiary of privatisation, that guarantee must still be given and honoured. Proper arrangements for the continuance of research and development are an important factor in honouring that pledge.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate. As my hon. Friend said, I have a constituency interest in this matter. My constituents work at the technical engineering division at Bedminster Down, at the generation, development and construction division at Barnwood, just outside Gloucester, and at the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside on initiating a debate on this important matter of the future of the industry. I wish to consider further the third option that he has mentioned. Like him, I believe that the technical expertise and research initiative that already exist within the electricity industry can be allowed to flourish as a result of privatisation.
In many ways, I suspect that my hon. Friend has been too timid in his view of the future of that section of the industry. Although I agree with him that we should consider closely the possibility of this section of the industry being treated separately, he underestimates the commercial value of the expertise in that sector.
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider my hon. Friend's third option, but with the possibility of creating in this country a centre of excellence in terms of engineering construction and development and research into the future of electricity generation and transmission. CEGB engineers are capable of doing that and could provide a service not just to "big G", "little G" or the private generators envisaged under privatisation, but worldwide. We have the expertise and the initiative, and I hope that privatisation will give the industry an opportunity to exploit them.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I, too, am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for giving me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I agree with what he says.
I appreciate that the White Paper is a consultation document but the research and development part of the industry hardly rates a mention, despite, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the fact that it employs over 2,000 people and has a turnover of some £162 million per annum — considerably greater than Land Rover whose progress, or perhaps lack of it, seems to dominate the headlines week after week. Yet somehow this side of the industry has had precious little mention to date.
I take a particular interest tonight because within the Stroud constituency are the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, which employs some 700 people, and, in the neighbouring Gloucester constituency, many more at Barnwood, some of whom also live in my constituency.
In reply to a written question the other day on the future of those employees, I received the reply that that was a matter for consultation within the industry. I appreciate that, but I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will be able to lift a little of the uncertainty for the benefit of my constituents.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for raising this important matter on the Adjournment. As he rightly pointed out, it gives me an opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box, at which my appearance has been somewhat rare recently. It is 21 or 22 months since I was last here. I did take some time away before the general election, but my particular area of responsibility does not seem to be a matter of great contention in the House.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for their contributions, knowing the research and development facilities as well as they do, as they pointed out.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside that of course Ministers listen. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has particular responsibility for this area, but who, sadly for the House and for himself, is unable to be here this evening, will be reading carefully the report of the debate and will certainly pay attention to everything that is said.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been committed to a visit to the United States for some time and he was unable to cancel it, but during the course of his visit he will be looking at research and development in the electricity industry which will no doubt be for the benefit of the House and the future deliberations on this aspect of privatisation.
However, my hon. Friend's visit gives me the chance to respond to the debate in the knowledge that research and development in the electricity supply industry is very important indeed. Wearing my hat as the Minister of State, Department of Energy, may I say that I am the chairman of the Offshore Energy Technology Board. The important input that research and development has made to the amazing success story of the North sea is very much part of my life. Therefore, I wholly appreciate the remarks that have been made about research and development in the important area of electricity as well.
Research and development is important and, amongst the utilities across the world, its reputation in the electricity supply industry is good and strong.
I agree that the record of research and development in the industry must be maintained as we look to the future. I would go even further than that and say that it needs to be improved, if that is possible.
The essence of research is, I believe, that ideas must be allowed to flourish, and new methods must continue to be tested, and new techniques must be introduced. The proposals in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" are familiar by now to the whole House. They will also secure greater efficiency and a more economic supply, as was undoubtedly proved during the debate on the White Paper, for the simple reason that we are building on what is best in the industry, and ending what is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that there are gaps in the White Paper, but it is in fact concerned with setting out a framework. During the weeks and months ahead there will be ample time for consultations. That is why I welcome the chance to have this debate and to discuss the ideas put forward on the future of research and development.
My own strongly held belief is that privatisation will benefit research and development in the electricity industry and will indeed open up greater opportunities. My hon. Friend gave a clear description of the current arrangements for research and development in the electricity supply industry. I will take a moment or two in the time left to elaborate on the research and development that is done by area boards, which he mentioned but did not go into in detail.
I will deal particularly with a centre that I know well, for reasons that are apparent, Capenhurst. It is close to my constituency — and my hon. Friends have mentioned centres close to their own constituencies. As the House knows, research into area board technological problems is undertaken both by the boards and the Electricity Council on their behalf. The council's programme is largely carried out at the Electricity Council Research Centre at Capenhurst.
About 75 per cent. of Capenhurst's efforts is devoted to what is called "utilisation research". The aim of this work is to develop new and improved products or processes which use electricity effectively. This provides the industry with a strong and competitive technology in the industrial, commercial and domestic sectors, against other energy industries. The remaining 25 per cent. of the effort is aimed at improving the distribution network of the industry. Recent advances have been made in the control of power supplies in rural networks to improve reliability for consumers.
But it is only fair to ask how the centre and the area boards respond to the opportunities in privatisation in the vital area of research and development. What will be the future arrangements? At this stage, I can give only a partial answer to these questions. As the House appreciates, the Electricity Council will cease to exist, but the 12 area boards have already, in their different ways, developed strong reputations for innovation.
For example, the board that I know best, MANWEB, has measured up to severe problems of electricity theft in inner city areas by experimenting with existing metering technology to develop an almost impregnable meter. The board is now a world leader in this equipment, and other distributors, both here and overseas, are following its lead.
In privatising the 12 area boards, we recognise that their contributions to their local regions will bring new opportunities in research and development, as well as in their mainstream commercial activities. The decisions concerning the organisational arrangements will be for the area boards.
I appreciate what my hon. Friends have said about research and development in generation—that the lion's share is being spent on this area. My hon. Friends have highlighted the records of Leatherhead, Berkeley, Marchwood and Barnwood, so I shall not detain the House by going into them.
I agree that the two generating companies formed from the CEGB will certainly continue to need to call for both research and engineering support for their existing power stations and for new stations for which they successfully tender. We will be looking to the industry to make proposals. We certainly expect there to be work which generators will take forward jointly; equally, there will be areas which generation companies will wish to take forward individually. It will depend ultimately on their own judgments. We believe that privatisation will throw open a whole range of opportunities for generation technologies. And, as the House knows, the distribution companies will be taking the lead in the restructured industry; they have already indicated that they will look to different forms of generation technologies, particularly for local generation and for managing peak demand.
The obligation on the distribution companies to contract for a fixed proportion of non-fossil fuelled capacity will also help foster a broader R and D base. Also, new generation technologies will come to the fore because substantial sums of investment will be needed over the coming years to meet growing demand and replace old plant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that the main aims of research and development programmes are to reduce costs and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the industry. I entirely agree with him. One of the great benefits of privatisation will be that the companies will become even more conscious of the need to orientate their research programmes towards the customers. I believe we are already seeing the first signs of that.
However, to embark on a formal consultation process through issuing a consultative paper could well have quite a contrary effect. We would run the risk of bureaucracy halting this exciting process of change. It was, I think, Chairman Mao who referred to letting a hundred flowers blossom. I might share little else of his philosophy, but that seems to me similar to what we are trying to achieve.
This is not to say that the Government do not welcome the views of those involved in the industry, those handling research programmes and those in plant manufacturing. This is a good time to let us have their views. I know that the Department's advisory committee on research and development is to discuss electricity R and D at its May meeting. But do let us avoid endless bureaucracy—it can dampen the enthusiasm for change.
Finally, I stress that we recognise the industry's excellent record and reputation in R and D. We intend to ensure that the industry continues fully to utilise its existing expertise and that new opportunities arise to build and expand on this record. In this way, we will end up with a fitter industry, offering a better service and giving the customer a better deal.

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Although he will not produce a consultative document, I recognise that he is casting himself in the role of the listening Minister. Therefore, he can now expect to be

bombarded with a host of suggestions from the people who are the seedcorn for the industry's future and without whom its future prosperity would he in doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.